<? 
 
% 
 
 The 
 
 ) eeches and Orations 
 
 ■ '.of 
 
 Daniel Webster 
 
 With an Essay on 
 
 Daniel Webster as a Master of 
 ^ English Style 
 
 By 
 
 Edwin P. Whipple 
 
 Boston 
 
 Little, Brown, and Company 
 
 1902 
 
i:- 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S79, by 
 
 Little, Brown, & Co., 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 
 
 *■ V ' ^ « '^t "^ » ' 
 
 Cambridge : 
 University Press : John Wilson and Son. 
 
/ 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The object of the present volume is not to supersede the 
 standard edition of Daniel Webster's Works, in six octavo vol- 
 umes, edited by Edward Everett, and originally issued in the 
 year 1851, by the publishers of this volume of Selections. It 
 is rather the purpose of the present publication to call atten- 
 tion anew to the genius and character of Daniel Webster, as 
 a lawyer, statesman, diplomatist, patriot, and citizen, and, by 
 republishing some of his prominent orations and speeches of 
 universally acknowledged excellence, to revive public interest 
 in the great body of his works. In the task of selection, it 
 uas been impossible to do full justice to his powers ; for 
 among the speeches omitted in this collection are to be found 
 passages of superlative eloquence, maxims of political and 
 moral wisdom which might be taken as mottoes for elaborate 
 treatises on the philosophy of law and legislation, and impor- 
 tant facts and principles wdiich no student of history of the 
 United States can overlook without betraying an ignorance 
 of the great forces w^hich influenced the legislation of the two 
 Houses of Congress, from the time Mr. AYebster first entered 
 public life to the day of his death. 
 
 It is to be supposed that, when Mr. Everett consented to 
 edit the six volumes of his works, Mr. Webster indicated to 
 him the orations, speeches, and diplomatic despatches which 
 he really thought might be of service to the public, and that 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 he intended them as a kind of legacy, — a bequest to his coun- 
 trymen. 
 
 The pubhshers of this volume believe that a study of Mr. 
 Webster's mind, heart, and character, as exhibited in the 
 selections contained in the present volume, will inevitably 
 direct all sympathetic readers to the great body of Mr. Web- 
 ster's works. Among the eminent men who have influenced 
 legislative assemblies in Great Britain and the United States, 
 during the past hundred and twenty years, it is curious that 
 only two have established themselves as men of the first 
 class in English and American literature. These two men 
 are Edmund Burke and Daniel Webster ; and it is only by 
 the complete study of every thing which they authorized to 
 be published under their names, that we can adequately com- 
 prehend either their position among the political forces of 
 their time, or their rank among the great masters of English 
 eloquence and style. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 tAV. 
 
 Daniel Webster as a Master of English Style . . xi 
 
 The Dartmouth College Case 1 
 
 Argument before the Supreme Court of the United States, at Wash- 
 ington, on the 10th of March, 1818. 
 
 FniST Settlejment of New England 25 
 
 A Discourse delivered at Plymouth, on the 22d of December, 1820. 
 
 Defence of Judge James Prescott 56 
 
 The closing Appeal to the Senate of Massachusetts, in Mr. Webster's 
 " Argument on the Impeachment of James Prescott," April 24th, 
 1821. 
 
 The Revolution in Greece 57 
 
 A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United 
 States, on the 19th of January, 1824. 
 
 The Tariff 77 
 
 A Speech delivered in the House of Representati^ es of the United 
 States, on the 1st and 2d of April, 1824. 
 
 The Case of Gibbons and Ogden Ill 
 
 An Argument made in the Case of Gibbons and Ogden, in the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States, February Term, 1824. 
 
 The Bunker Hill Monument 123 
 
 An Address delivered at the Laying of the Corner-Stone of the 
 Bunker Hill INIonument at Charlestown, Massachusetts, on the 
 17th of June, 1825. 
 
 The Coimpletion of the Bunker Hill Monument . .136 
 
 An Address delivered on Bunker Hill, on the 17th of June, 1843, 
 on Occasion of the Completion of the Monument. 
 
Vi CONTENTS. 
 
 Our REiiATiONS to the South American Republics . . 152 
 
 Extracts from the Speech on "The Panama Mission," delivered in 
 the House of Representatives of the United States, on the 14th of 
 April, 1826. 
 
 Adams and Jefferson 156 
 
 A Discourse in Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John 
 Adams and Thomas Jefferson, delivered in Faneuil Hall, Boston, 
 on the 2d of August, 1826. 
 
 The Case of Ogden and Saunders 179 
 
 An Argument made in the Case of Ogden and Saunders, iu the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States, January Term, 1827. 
 
 The Murder of Captain Joseph White 189 
 
 An Argument on the Trial of John Francis Knapp, for the Murder 
 of Joseph "White, of Salem, in Essex County, Massachusetts, on the 
 >'ight of the 6ih of April, 1830. 
 
 The Reply to Hayne 227 
 
 Second Speech on " Foot's Resolution," delivered in the Senate of 
 the United States, on the 26th and 27th of January, 1830. 
 
 The Constitution not a Compact bet\veen Sovereign 
 
 States 273 
 
 A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 16th of 
 February, 1833, in Reply to Mr. Calhoun's Speech on the Bill 
 " Further to Provide for the Collection of Duties on Imports." 
 
 Public Dinner at New York 307 
 
 A Speech delivered at a Public Dinner given by a large Number of 
 Citizens of New York, in Honor of Mr. "Webster, on March 10th, 
 1831. 
 
 The Presidential Veto of the United States Bank 
 
 Bill 320 
 
 A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 11th of 
 July, 1832, on the President's Yeto of the Bank Bill. 
 
 The Character of ^VASHINGTON 339 
 
 A Speech delivered at a Public Dinner in the City of AVa>hington, 
 on the 22d of Ft-bruary, 1832, the Centennial Anniversary of 
 "Washiiifjton's Birthday. 
 
 Executive Patronage and Removals from Office . . 347 
 
 From a Speech delivered at the National Republican Convention, 
 held at Worcester (Mass.), on the 12th of October, 1832. 
 
CONTENTS vil 
 
 Executive Usurpation 353 
 
 From the same Speech at Worcester. 
 
 The Natural Hatred op the Poor to the Rich . . . 359 
 
 From a Speech in the Senate of the United States, January Slat, 
 
 1834, on "The Removal of the Deposits." 
 
 A Redeemable Paper Currency 362 
 
 From a Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 
 22d of February, 1834. 
 
 The Presidential Protest 367 
 
 A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 7th of 
 May, 1834, on the subject of the President's Protest against the 
 Resolution of the Senate of the 28th of March. 
 
 The Appointing and Removing Power 394 
 
 Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 1 6th of February, 
 
 1835, on the Passage of the Bill entitled *' An Act to Repeal the 
 First and Second Sections of the Act to limit the Term of Service 
 of certain Officers therein named." 
 
 On the Loss of the Fortification Bill in 1835 . . . 407 
 
 A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 14th 
 of January, 1836, on Mr. Benton's Resolutions for Appropriating 
 the Surplus Revenue to National Defence. 
 
 Reception at New York 422 
 
 A Speech delivered at Niblo's Saloon, in New York, on the loth of 
 March, 1837. 
 
 Slavery in the District of Columbia 44i) 
 
 Remarks made in the Senate of the United States, on tlie 10th of 
 January, 1838, upon a Resolution moved by Mr. Clay as a Sub- 
 stitute for the Resolution offered by Mr. Calhoun on the Subject of 
 Slavery in the District of Columbia. 
 
 The Credit System and the Labor of the United 
 
 States *lt9 
 
 From the Second Speech on the Sub-Treasury, delivered in the Senate 
 of the United States, on the 12th of March, 1838. 
 
yi{{ CONTENTS. 
 
 Remarks on the Political Course of Mr. Calhoun, in 
 
 1838 453 
 
 From the same Speech. 
 
 Reply to ]\Ir. Calhoun 458 
 
 A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 22J of 
 March, 1838, in Answer to Mr. Calhoun. 
 
 A Uniform System of Bankruptcy 471 
 
 From a Speech delivered in the Senate of the United State?, on the 
 18th of May, 1840, on the proposed Amendment to the Bill estab- 
 lishing a Uniform System of Bankruptcy. 
 
 " The Log Cabin Candidate " 476 
 
 F'rom a Speech delivered at the great Mass Meeting at Saratoga, New 
 York, on the 12th of August, 1840. 
 
 Address to the Ladies of Richmond 478 
 
 Remarks at a Public Reception by the Ladies of Richmond, Virginia, 
 on the 5th of October, 1840. 
 
 Reception at Boston 481 
 
 A Speech made in Faneuil Hall, on the 30th of September, 1842, at 
 a Public Reception given to !Mr. Webster, on his Return to Boston, 
 after the Negotiation of the Treaty of "Washington. 
 
 The Landing at Ply]siouth 496 
 
 A Speech delivered on the 22d of December, 1843, at the Public 
 Dinner of the New England Society of New York, in Commemo- 
 ration of the Landing of the Pilgrims. 
 
 The Christian jNIinistry and the Religious Instruc- 
 tion of the Young 505 
 
 A Speech delivered in the Supreme Court at "Washington, on the 
 20th of February, 1844, in the Girard Will Case. 
 
 Mr. Justice Story 532 
 
 The Rhode Island Government 535 
 
 An Arirument made in the Supreme Court of the United States, on 
 the 27th of January, 1848, in the Dorr Rebellion Cases. 
 
 Objects of the Mexican War 551 
 
 A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 23d of 
 !March, 1848, on the Bill from the House of Representatives for 
 raising a Loan of Sixteen Millions of Dollars. 
 
CONTENTS. ix 
 
 Exclusion of Slavery from the Territories .... 669 
 Remarks made in the Senate of the United States, on the 12th of 
 August, 1848. 
 
 Speech at Marshfield 575 
 
 Delivered at a Meeting of the Citizens of Marshfield, Mass., on the 
 1st of September, 1848. 
 
 Jereahah Mason 589 
 
 Kossuth 598 
 
 From a Speech delivered in Boston, on the 7th of November, 1849, 
 at a Festival of the Natives of New Hampshire established in 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 The Constitution and the Union 600 
 
 A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 7th of 
 March, 1850. 
 
 Reception at Buffalo 626 
 
 A Speech delivered before a large Assembly of the Citizens of Buffalo 
 and the County of Erie, at a Public Reception, on the 22d of May, 
 1851. 
 
 The Addition to the Capitol 63l> 
 
 An Address delivered at the Laying of the Corner-Stone of the Addi- 
 tion to the Capitol, on the 4th of July, 1851. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Impressment 655 
 
 The Right of Search 660 
 
 Letters to General Cass on the Treaty of Wash- 
 ington QQQ 
 
 The HiJLSEMANN Letter 678 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER 
 AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. 
 
 FROM my own experience and observation I should say that every 
 boy, who is ready enough in spelling, grammar, geograpliy, and 
 arithmetic, is appalled when he is commanded to write what is termed 
 " a composition." When he enters college the same fear follows him • 
 and the Pi-ofessor of Rhetoric is a more terrible personage to his imag- 
 ination than the Professors of Greek, Latin, Mathematics, and Moral 
 and Intellectual Philosophy. Both boys at school and young men 
 i n college show no lack o f pow er Ih speaking their native language 
 withaxahemence and fluency which almost stuns the ears of their 
 seniors. Why, then, should they find such difficulty in^writing it? 
 When you listen to the animated talk of a bright school-boy or college 
 student, full of a subject which really interests him, you say at once 
 that such command of racy and idiomatic English words must of 
 course be exhibited in his " compositions " or his " themes " ; but 
 when the latter are examined, they are commonly found to be feeble 
 and lifeless, with hardly a thought or a word which bears any stamp of 
 freshness or originality, and which are so inferior to his ordinary con- 
 versation, that we can hardly believe they came from the same mind. 
 The first quality which strikes an examiner of these exercises in 
 English composition is their falseness. No boy or youth wi-ites what 
 he personallyjbhinks and feels, but wi-ites what a good boy or youth is 
 exgefitfidltQ- think or feel. This hypocrisy vjtiates his wi-iting f rom 
 first to last, and is not absent in his " Class Ojatioh," or m his 
 "Speech at Commencement." I have a vivid memory of the first 
 time the boys of my class, in a public school, were called upon to 
 write •• composition." The themes selected -were the promintiu moral 
 virtues or vices. How we poor innocent urchins were tormented by 
 the task imposed upon us ! How we put more ink on our liaiids and 
 faces than we shed upon the white paper on our desks ! Our conclu- 
 Bions generally agreed ^vlth those announced by tlie greatest moralists 
 
xii DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 of tlie world. Socrates and Plato, Cicero and Seneca, Cud worth and 
 BuHer, could not have been more austerely moral than were we little 
 rogues, as we relieved the immense exertion involved in completing a 
 single short baby-like sentence, by shying at one companion a rule, 
 or hurling at another a paper pellet intended to light plump on hia 
 forehead or nose. Our custom was to begin every composition with 
 the proposition that such or such a virtue " was one of the greatest 
 blessings we enjoy " ; and this triumph of accurate statement was not 
 discovered by our teacher to be purely mechanical, until one juvenile 
 thinker, having avarice to deal with, declared it to be " one of the 
 greatest evils we enjoy." The whole thing was such a piece of 
 monstrous hypocrisy, that I once timidly suggested to the school- 
 master that it would be well to allow me to select my own subject. 
 The request was granted ; and, as narrative is the natural form of com 
 position which a boy adopts when he has his own way, I filled, in less 
 than half the time heretofore consumed in writing a quarter of a page, 
 four pages of letter-paper with an account of my being in a ship taken 
 by a pirate ; of the heroic defiance I launched at the pirate captain ; 
 and the sagacity I evinced in escaping the fate of my fellow-passen- 
 gers, in not being ordered to " walk the plank." The story, though 
 trashy enough, was so much better than any of the moral essays of 
 the other pupils, that the teacher commanded me to read it before the 
 whole school, as an evidence of the rapid strides I had made in the art 
 of " composition." 
 
 This falseness of thought and feeling is but too apt to characterize 
 the writing of the student, after he has passed from the common 
 school to the academy or the college. The term " Sophomorical " is 
 jised to describe speeches which are full of emotion which the speaker 
 does not feel, full of words in four or five syllables that mean nothing, 
 and, in respect to imagery and illustrations, blazing with the cheap 
 jewelry of rhetoric, — with those rubies and diamonds that can be pur- 
 chased for a few pennies an oun ce. The danger is that this ' Soph- 
 omorical " style may continue to afflict the student after he has be- 
 come a clergyman, a lawyer, or a legislator. 
 
 Practical men who may not be " college educated " still have the 
 great virtue of using the few words they employ as identical with facts. 
 When they meet a man who has half the dictionary at his disposal, 
 and yet gives no evidence of apprehending the real import and mean- 
 ing of one word among the many thousands he glibly pours forth, 
 they naturally distrust him, as a person who does not know the vital 
 connection of all good words with the real things they represent 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xiu 
 
 luileed, the L<st rule that a Professor of Rhetoric could adopt would 
 be to insist that no student under his care should use an unusual 
 word until he had earned the right to use it by making it the verbal 
 sign of some new advance in his thinking, in his acquirements, or in 
 his feelings. Shakspeare, the greatest of English writers, and per- 
 haps the greatest of all writers, required fifteen thousand words to 
 embody all that his vast exceptional intelligence acquired, thought, 
 imagined, and discovered ; and he had earned the right to use every 
 one of them. Milton found that eight thousand words could fairly 
 and fully represent all the power, grandeur, and creativeness of hia 
 almost seraphic soul, when he attempted to express his whole nature 
 in a literaiy form. All the words used by Shakspeare and Milton 
 are alive ; " cut them and they will hleed^ But it is ridiculous for a 
 college student to claim that he has the mighty resources of the Eng- 
 lish language at his supreme disposal, when he has not verified, by his 
 own thought, knowledge, and experience, one in a hundred of the 
 words he presumptuously employs. 
 
 Now Daniel Webster passed safely through all the stages of the 
 " Sophomoric " disease of the mind, as he passed safely through the 
 measles, the chicken-pox, and other eruptive maladies incident to 
 childhood and youth. The process, however, by which he purified his 
 style from this taint, and made his diction at last as robust and as 
 manly, as simple and as majestic, as the nature it expressed, will 
 reward a little study. 
 
 The mature style of Webster is perfect of its kind, being in words 
 the express image of his mind and character, — plain, terse, clear, 
 forcible ; and rising from the level of lucid statement and argument 
 into passages of superlative eloquence only when his whole nature is 
 stirred by some grand sentiment of freedom, patriotism, justice, 
 humanity, or religion, which absolutely lifts him, by its own inherent 
 force and inspiration, to a region above that in which his mind habit- 
 ually lives and moves. At the same time it will be observed that 
 these thrilling passages, which the boys of two generations have ever 
 been delighted to declaim in their shrillest tones, are strictly illustra- 
 tive of the main purpose of the speech in which they appear. They 
 are not mere purple patches of rhetoric, loosely stitched on the home- 
 spun gray of the reasoning, but they seem to be inwoven with it and 
 to be a vital part of it. Indeed we can hardly decide, in reading 
 these magnificent bursts of eloquence in connection with what precedes 
 and follows them, whether the effect is due to the logic of the orator 
 becoming suddenly morally impassioned, or to his moral passion 
 
xiv DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 becoming suddenly logical. What gave Webster bis immense intlu- 
 ence over the opinions of the people of New England was, first, liia 
 power of so " putting things " that everybody could understand his 
 statements ; secondly, his power of so framing his arguments that 
 all the steps, from one point to another, in a logical series, could be 
 clearly apprehended by every intelligent farmer or mechanic who 
 had a thoughtful interest in the affairs of the country ; and thirdly, 
 his power of inflaming the sentiment of patriotism in all honest and 
 well-intentioned men by overwhelming appeals to that sentiment, so 
 that, after convincing their understandings, he clinched the matter 
 by sweeping away their wills. 
 
 Perhaps to these sources of influence may be added another which 
 many eminent statesmen have lacked. With all his gi-eat superiority 
 to average men in force and breadth of mind, he had a genuine respect 
 for the intellect, as well as for the manhood, of average men. He, 
 disdained the ignoble office of misleading the voters he aimed tc 
 instruct ; and the farmers and mechanics who read his speeches felt 
 ennobled when they found that the greatest statesman of the country 
 frankly addressed them, as man to man, without pluming himself on his 
 exceptional talents and accomplishments. Up to the crisis of 1850, he 
 succeeded in domesticating himself at most of the pious, moral, and in- 
 telligent firesides of New England. Through his speeches he seemed to 
 be almost bodily present wherever the family, gathered in the evening 
 around the blazing hearth, discussed the questions of the day. It was 
 not the great Mr. Webster, " the godlike Daniel/' who had a seat by 
 the fire. It was a person who talked to them, and argued with them, as 
 though he was "one of the folks," — a neighbor dropping in to make 
 an evening call ; there was not the slightest trace of assumption in his 
 manner ; but suddenly, after the discussion had become a little tire- 
 some, certain fiery words would leap from his lips and make the whole 
 household spring to their feet, ready to sacrifice life and property for 
 " the Constitution and the Union." That Webster was thus a kind 
 of invisible presence in thousands of homes where his face was never 
 seen, shows that his rhetoric had caught an element of power from his 
 early recollections of the independent, hard-headed farmers whom he 
 met when a boy in his father's house. The bodies of these men had 
 become tough and strong in their constant struggle to force scanty 
 harvests from an unfruitful soil, which only persistent toil could com- 
 pel to yield any thing ; and their brains, though forcible and clear, 
 were still not stored with the important facts and principles which it 
 was his delight to state and expound. In truth, he ran a race with 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XV 
 
 the demagogues of liis time in an attempt to capture such men as 
 these, thinking them the very backbone of the country. Whether he 
 succeeded or failed, it would be vain to hunt through his works to find 
 a single epithet in which he mentioned them with contempt. He was 
 as incapable of insulting one member of this landed democracy, — 
 sterile as most of their acres were, — as of insulting the memory of 
 his father, who belonged to this class. 
 
 The late Mr. Peter Harvey used to tell with much zest a story 
 illustrating the hold which these early associations retained on Web- 
 ster's mind throuf^hout his life. Some months after his removal from 
 Portsmouth to Boston, a servant knocked at his chamber door late in 
 an April afternoon in the year 1817, with the announcement that 
 three men were in the drawing-room who insisted on seeing him. Web- 
 ster was overwhelmed with fatigue, the result of his Congressional 
 labors and his attendance on courts of law; and he had determined, 
 a'ter a night's sleep, to steal a vacation in order to recruit his ener- 
 gies by a fortnight's fishing and hunting. He suspected that the 
 persons below were expectant clients ; and he resolved, in descending 
 the stairs, not to accept their offer. He found in the parlor three 
 plain, country-bred, honest-looking men, who were believers in the 
 innocence of Levi and Laban Kenniston, accused of robbing a certain 
 Major Goodridge on the highway, and whose trial would take place at 
 Ipswich the next day. They could find, they said, no member of the 
 Essex bar who would undertake the defence of the Kennistons, and 
 they had come to Boston to engage the services of Mr. Webster. 
 Would he go down to Ipswich and defend the accused ? Mr. Webster 
 stated that he could not and would not go. He had made arrange- 
 ments for an excursion to the sea-side ; the state of his health abso- 
 lutely demanded a short withdrawal from all business cares ; and that 
 no fee could tempt him to abandon his purpose. " Well," was the 
 reply of one of the delegation, " it isn't the fee that we think of at all, 
 though we are willing to pay what you may charge ; but it's justice. 
 Here are two New Hampshire men who are believed in Exeter, and 
 Newbury, and Newburyport, and Salem to be rascals; but we in New- 
 market believe, in spite of all evidence against them, that they are the 
 victims of some conspiracy. We think you are the man to unravel 
 it, though it seems a good deal tangled even to us. Still we suppose 
 that men whom we know to have been honest all their lives can't 
 have become such desperate rogues all of a sudden." " But I cannot 
 take the case," persisted Mr. Webster; "I am worn to death with 
 over-work • I have not had any real sleep for foi-ty-eight hours. 
 
XVI 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 Besides, I know nothing of the case." " It's hard, I can see," con- 
 tinned the leader of the delegation ; " but you're a New Hampshire 
 man, and the neighbors thought that you would not allow two innocent 
 New Hampshire men, however humble they may be in their circum- 
 stances, to suffer for lack of your skill in exposing the wiles of thia 
 scoundrel Goodridge. The neighbors all desire you to take the case." 
 That phrase '' the neighbors " settled the question. No resident of a 
 city knows what the phrase means. But Webster knew it in all the 
 intense significance of its meaning. His imagination flew back to the 
 scattered homesteads of a New England village, where mutual sympa- 
 thy and assistance are the necessities, as they are the commonplaces, 
 of village life. The phrase remotely meant to him the combination 
 of neighbors to resist an assault of Indian savages, or to send volun- 
 teers to the war which wrought the independence of the nation. It 
 specially meant to him the help of neighbor to neighbor, in times of 
 sickness, distress, sorrow, and calamity. In his childhood and boy- 
 hood the Christian question, "Who is my neighbor?" was instantly 
 solved the moment a matron in good health heard that the ^vife of 
 Farmer A, or Farmer B, was stricken down by fever, and needed a 
 friendly nurse to sit by her bedside all night, though she had herself 
 been toiling hard all day. Every thing philanthropists mean when they 
 talk of brotherhood and sisterhood among men and women was con- 
 densed in that homely phrase, '' the neighbors." " Oh ! " said Web- 
 ster, ruefully, " if the neighbors think I may be of service, of course 
 I must go"; — and, with his three companions, he was soon seated in 
 the stage for Ipswich, where he arrived at about midnight. The court 
 met the next morning ; and his management of the case is still con- 
 sidered one of his masterpieces of legal acumen and eloquence. His 
 cross-examination of Goodridge rivalled, in mental torture, everj- thing 
 martyrologists tell us of the physical agony endured by the victim of 
 the inquisitor, when roasted before slow fires or stretched upon the rack. 
 Still it seemed impossible to assign any motive for the self-robbery 
 and the self-maiming of Goodridge, which any judge or jury would 
 accept as reasonable. The real motive has never been discovered. 
 Webster argued that the motive might have originated in a desire 
 to escape from the payment of his debts, or in a whimsical ambition 
 to have his name sounded all over Maine and Massachusetts as the 
 heroic tradesman who had parted with his money only when over- 
 powered by superior force. It is impossible to say what motives may 
 impel men who are half-crazed by vanity, or half-demonized by malice. 
 Coleridire describes lago's hatred of Othello as the hatred which a 
 
 A^^ VA^OV.W^V,0 ^..Q. 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XTli 
 
 base nature instinctively feels for a noble one, and his assignment of 
 motives for his acts as the mere "motive-hunting of a motivelesa 
 
 malignity." 
 
 Whatever may have been Goodritlge's motive in his attempt to ruin 
 the innocent men he falsely accused, it is certain that Webster saved 
 these men from the unjust punishment of an imputed crime. Only 
 the skeleton of his argument before the jury has been preserved ; but 
 what we have of it evidently passed under his revision. He knew 
 that the plot of Goodridge had been so cunningly contrived, that every 
 man of the twelve before him, whose verdict was to determine the 
 fate of his clients, was inwardly persuaded of their guilt. Some small 
 marked portions of the money which Goodridge swore he had on his 
 person on the night of the pretended robbery were found in their house. 
 Circumstantial evidence brought their guilt with a seemingly irre- 
 sistible force literally " home " to them. It was the conviction of the 
 leaders of the Essex bar that no respectable lawyer could appear in 
 their defence without becoming, in some degree, their accomplice. 
 But Webster, after damaging the character of the prosecutor by his 
 stern cross-examination, addressed the jury, not as an advocate beai*- 
 ing down upon them with his arguments and appeals, but rather as a 
 thirteenth juryman, who had cosily introduced himself into their com- 
 pany, and was arguing the case with them after they had retired for 
 consultation among themselves. The simplicity of the language era- 
 ployed is not more notable than the power evinced in seizing the 
 main points on which the question of guilt or innocence turned. At 
 every quiet but deadly stab aimed at the theory of the prosecution, he 
 is careful to remark, that '• it is for the jury to say under their oaths" 
 whether such inconsistencies or improbabilities should have any effect 
 on their minds. Every strong argument closes with the ever-recurring 
 phrase, "It is for the jury to say"; and, at the end, the jury, thor- 
 oughly convinced, said, " Not guilty." The Kennistons were vindi- 
 cated ; and the public, which had been almost unanimous in declaring 
 them fit tenants for the State prison, soon blamed the infatuation 
 which had made them the accomplices of a villain in hunting down 
 two unoffending citizens, and of denouncing every lawyer who should 
 undertake their defence as a legal rogue. 
 
 The detected scoundrel fled from the place where his rascality had 
 been exposed, to seek some other locality, where the mingled jeers and 
 curses of his dupes would be unheard. Some twenty years after the 
 trial, Mr. Webster, while travelling in Western New York, stopped at 
 an obscure village tavern to get a glass of water. The hand of the 
 
 b 
 
XVlll DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 man behind the bar, who gave it to him, trembled violently ; and 
 Webster, wondering at the cause, looked the fellow steadily in the eye. 
 He recocrnized Goodridcre, and understood at once that Goodridfje had 
 just before recognized him. Not a word passed between the felon and 
 the intrepid advocate who had stripped his villany of all its plausible 
 disETuises ; but what immense meanincj must there have been in the 
 swift interchange of feeling as their eyes met! Mr. Webster entered 
 his carriage and proceeded on his journey ; but Goodridge, — who has 
 since ever heard of him? 
 
 This story is a slight digression, but it illustrates that hold on 
 reality, that truth to fact, which was one of the soui-ces of the force 
 and simplicity of Mr. Webster's mature style. He, however, only 
 obtained these good qualities of rhetoric by long struggles with con- 
 stant temptations, in his early life, to use resounding expressions and 
 fiarinfr ima^jes which he had not earned the riQ;ht to use. His Fourth 
 of July oration at Hanover, when he was only eighteen, and his college 
 addresses, must have been very bad in their diction if we can judge of 
 them by the style of his private correspondence at the time. The 
 verses he incorporates in his letters are deformed by all the faults of 
 false thinking and borrowed expression which characterized contem- 
 porary American imitators of English imitators of Pope and Gray. 
 Think of the future orator, lawyer, and senator writing, even at the 
 age of twenty, such balderdash as this I 
 
 " And Heaven grant me, whatever luck betide, 
 Be fame or fortune given or denied, 
 Some cordial friend to meet my warm desire, 
 Honest as John and good as Xeheniiah." 
 
 In reading such couplets we are reminded of the noted local poet of 
 New Hampshire (or was it Maine ?) who wrote " The Shepherd's 
 Songs," and some of whose rustic lines still linger in the memory to 
 be laughed at, such, for instance, as these : — 
 
 Or these : — 
 
 " This child who perished in the fire, ■ 
 His father's name was Nehemiah." 
 
 " Xapoleon, that great exiVe, 
 Who scoured all Europe like a file." 
 
 And Webster's prose was then almost as bad as his verse, though it 
 was modelled on Avhat was considered fine writing at the opening of 
 the present century. He writes to his dearest student friends in a 
 style whicli is profoundly insincere, though the thoughts are often 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XIX 
 
 good, and the fact of his love for his friends cannot be doubted. He 
 had committed to memory Fisher Ames's noble speech on the British 
 Treaty, and had probably read some of Burke's great pamphlets on the 
 French Revohition. The stripling statesman aimed to talk in their 
 high tone and in their richly ornamented language, before he had 
 earned the right even to mimic their style of expression. There is a 
 certain swell in some of his long sentences, and a kind of good sense 
 in seme of his short ones, which suggest that the writer is a youth 
 endowed with elevation as well as strength of nature, and is only 
 makincr a fool of himself because he thinks he must make a fool of 
 himself in order that he may impress his correspondents with the idea 
 that he is a master of the horrible jargon which all bright young 
 fellows at that time innocently supposed to constitute eloquence. 
 Thus, in February, 1800, he writes thus to his friend Bingham : " In 
 ray melancholy moments I presage the most dire calamities. 1 
 already see in my imagination the time when the banner of civil war 
 shall be unfurled ; when Discord's hydra form shall set up her hideous 
 yell, and from her hundred mouths shall howl destruction through our 
 empire ; and when American blood shall be made to flow in rivers by 
 American swords! But propitious Heaven prevent such dreadful 
 calamities ! Internally secure, we have nothing to fear. Let Europe 
 pour her embattled millions around us, let her thronged cohorts cover 
 our shores, from St. Lawrence to St. Marie's, yet United Columbia 
 shall stand unmoved ; the manes of her deceased Washington shall 
 guard the liberties of his country, and direct the sword of freedom in 
 the day of battle." And think of this, not in a Fourth of July ora- 
 tion, but in a private letter to an intimate acquaintance ! The bones 
 of Daniel Webster might be supposed to have moved in their coffin at 
 the thought that this miserable trash — so regretted and so amply 
 atoned for — should have ever seen the light; but it is from such 
 youthful follies that we measure the vigor of the man who outgrows 
 them. 
 
 It was fortunate that Webster, after he was admitted to the bar, 
 came into constant collision, in the courts of New Hampshire, with one 
 of the greatest masters of the common law that the country has ever 
 produced, Jeremiah Mason. It has been said that Mr. Mason educated 
 Webster into a lawyer by opposing him. He did more than this ; he 
 cured Webster of all the florid foolery of his early rhetorical style. 
 Of all men that ever appeared before a jury. Mason was the most 
 pitiless realist, the most terrible enemy of what is — in a slang term 
 as vile almost as itself — called " Hifalutin"; and woe to the opposing 
 
zx 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 lawyer \vho indulged in it! He relentlessly pricked all ihetorical 
 bubbles, reducing them at once to the small amount of ignominious 
 suds, which the orator's breath had converted into colored globes, 
 having some appearance of stability as well as splendor. Six feet and 
 seven inches high, and corpulent in proportion, this inexorable repre- 
 sentative of good sense and sound law stood, while he was arguing a 
 case, " quite near to the jury," says Webster, — " so near that he might 
 have laid his finger on the foreman's nose ; and then he talked to them 
 in a plain conversational way, in short sentences, and using no word 
 that was not level to the comprehension of the least educated man on 
 the panel. This led me," he adds, '^ to examine my o\vn style, and 
 I set about reforming it altogether.' 
 
 Mr. Mason was what the lawyers call a " cause-getting man," like 
 Sir James Scarlett, Brougham's great opponent at the English bar. It 
 was said of Scarlett, that he gained his verdicts because there were 
 twelve Scarletts in the jury-box; and Mason so contrived to blend his 
 stronger mind with the minds of the jurymen, that his thoughts 
 appeared to be theirs, expressed in the same simple words and quaint 
 illustrations which they would have used if asked to give their opin- 
 ions on the case. It is to be added, that Mason's almost cynical dis- 
 regard of ornament in his addresses to the jury gave to an opponent 
 like Webster the advantage of availing himself of those real orna- 
 ments of speech which spring directly from a great heart and 
 imagination. Webster, without ever becoming so supremely plain 
 and simple in style as Mason, still strove to emulate, in his legal 
 statements and arguments, the homely, robust common-sense of his 
 antaf'onist: but, wherever the case allowed of it, he brought into 
 the discussion an element of «n-common sense, the gift of his own 
 genius and individuality, which Mason could hardly comprehend 
 sufficiently to controvert, but which was surely not without its effect 
 in deciding the verdicts of juries. 
 
 It is probable that Webster was one of the few lawyers and statesmen 
 that Mason respected. Mason's curt, sharp, "vitriolic" sarcasms on 
 many men who enjoyed a national reputation, and who were popularly 
 considered the lights of their time, still remain in the memories of his 
 surviving associates, as things which may be quoted in conversation, 
 but which it would be cruel to put into print. Of Webster, however, 
 he never seems to have spoken a contemptuous word. Indeed, Mason, 
 thouL'h fourteen years older than Webster, and lighting him at the 
 Portsmouth bar with all the formidable force of his logic and learning, 
 was from the first his cordial friend. That friendship, early estab- 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXI 
 
 Hshed between strong natures so opposite in character, was never dis- 
 turbed by any collision in the courts. In a letter written, I think, a 
 few weeks after he had made that " Reply to Hayne " which is con- 
 ceded to be one of the great masterpieces of eloquence in the recorded 
 oratory of the world, Webster wrote jocularly to Mason : " I have 
 been written to, to go to New Hampshire, to try a cause against you 
 next August. ... If it were an easy and plain case on our side, I 
 might be willing to go ; but I have some of your pounding in my 
 hones yet., and I don't care about any more till that wears out." 
 
 It mav be said that Webster's argument in the celebrated " Dart- 
 mouth College Case," before the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 placed him, at the age of thirty-six, in the foremost I'ank of the con- 
 stitutional lawyers of the country. For the main points of the reason- 
 ing, and for the exhaustive citation of authorities by which the 
 reasoning was sustained, he was probably indebted to Mason, who had 
 previously argued the case before the Superior Court of New Hamp- 
 shire ; but his superiority to Mason was shown in the eloquence, the 
 moral powei-, he infused into his reasoning, so as to make the dullest 
 citation of legal authority tell on the minds he addressed. 
 
 There is one incident connected with this speech which proves what 
 immense force is given to simple Avords when a great man — great in 
 his emotional nature as well as great in logical power — is behind the 
 words. '' It is, sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there 
 are those who love it." At this point the orator's lips quivered, his 
 voice choked, his eyes filled with tears, — all the memories of sacrifices 
 endured by his father and mother, his brothers and sisters, in order 
 that he might enjoy its rather scanty advantages of a liberal educa- 
 tion, and by means of which he was there to plead its cause before the 
 supreme tribunal of the nation, rushed suddenly upon his mind in 
 an overwhelming flood. The justices of the Supreme Court — great 
 lawyers, tried and toughened by experience into a certain obdurate 
 sense of justice, and insensible to any common appeal to their hearts 
 — melted into unwonted tenderness, as, in broken words, the advocate 
 proceeded to state his own indebtedness to the " small college," whose 
 rights and privileges he was there to defend. Chief Justice Marsliall's 
 eyes were filled with tears; and the eyes of the other justices were 
 suffused with a moisture similar to that which afflicted the eyes of 
 the Chief. As the orator gradually recovered his accustomed stern 
 composure of manner, he turned to the counsel on the other side, — 
 one of whom, at least, was a graduate of Dartmouth, — and in his 
 deepest and most thrilling tones, thus concluded his argument : " Sir 
 
XXll DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 r know not how others may feel ; but for myself, when I see my 
 Alma Mater surrounded, like Caesar in the senate-house, by those who 
 are reiterating stab after stab, I would not, for this right hand, have 
 her turn to me and say, Et tu quoque^ mi jili ! — And thou too, my son." 
 The effect was overwhelming; yet by what simple means was it pro- 
 duced, and \\\t\\ what small expenditure of words ! The eloquence 
 was plainly " in the man, in the subject, and in the occasion," but most 
 emphatically was it in the Man. 
 
 "Webster's extreme solicitude to make his style thoroughly Web- 
 sterian — a style unimitated because it is in itself inimitable — is 
 observable in the care he took in revising all his speeches and 
 addresses which were published under his own authority. His great 
 Plymouth oration of 1820 did not appear in a pamphlet form until a 
 year after its delivery. The chief reason of tliis delay was probably 
 due to his desire of stating the main political idea of the oration, that 
 government is founded on property, so clearly that it could not be 
 misconceived by any honest mind, and could only be perverted from 
 its plain democratic meaning by the ingenious malignity of such minds 
 as are deliberately dishonest, and consider lying as justifiable when 
 lying will serve a party purpose. It is probable that Webster would 
 liave been President of the United States had it not been for one 
 short sentence in this oration, — " Government is founded on prop- 
 erty." It was of no use for his political friends to prove that he 
 founded on this general proposition the most democratic views as to 
 the distribution of property, and advised the enactment of laws calcu- 
 lated to frustrate the accumulation of large fortunes in a few hands. 
 There were the words, words horrible to tlie democratic imagination, 
 and Webster was proclaimed an aristocrat, and an enemy to the common 
 people. But the delay in the publication of the oration may also be 
 supposed to have been due to his desire to prune all its grand passages 
 of eloquence of every epithet and image which should not be rigor- 
 ously exact as expressions of hi? genuine sentiments and principles. 
 It is probable that the Plymouth oration, as we possess it in print, is 
 a better oration, in respect to composition, than that which was heard 
 by the applauding crowd before which it was originally delivertd. 
 It is certain that the largeness, the grandeur, the weight of Webster's 
 whole nature, were first made manifest to the intelligent portion 
 of his countrymen by this noble commemorative address. 
 
 Yet it is also certain that he was not himself altogether satisfied 
 with this oration ; and his dissatisfaction with some succeeding pop- 
 ular speeches, memorable in the annals of American eloquence, was 
 
AS A M^VSTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXlll 
 
 expressed privately to bis friends in the most emphatic terras. On the 
 day he completed his magnificent Bunker II ill oration, delivered on 
 the 17th of June, 18'2o, he wrote to Mr. George Ticknor: "I did 
 the deed this morning, i. e. I finished my speech ; and I am pretty 
 well persuaded that it will finish me as far as reputation is concerned. 
 There is no more tone in it than in the weather in which it has been 
 written ; it is perpetual dissolution and thaw." Every critic will 
 understand the force of that word " tone." He seemed to feel that it 
 had not enough robust manliness, — that the ribs and backbone, the 
 facts, thoughts, and real substance of the address, were not sufficiently 
 prominent, owing to the frequency of those outbursts of magnetic elo- 
 quence, which made the immense audience that listened to it half 
 crazy with the vehemence of their applause. On the morning after 
 he had delivered his eulogy on Adams and Jefferson, he entered his 
 office with his manuscript in his hand, and threw it down on the desk 
 of a young student at law whom he specially esteemed, with the 
 request, " There, Tom, please to take that discourse, and weed out all 
 the Latin words.'' 
 
 Webster's liking for the Saxon element of our composite language 
 was, however, subordinate to his main purpose of self-expression. 
 Every word was good, whether of Saxon or Latin derivation, which 
 aided him to embody the mood of mind dominant at the time he was 
 speaking or writing. No man had less of what has been called " the 
 ceremonial cleanliness of academical pharisees ; " and the purity of 
 expression he aimed at was to put into a form, at once intelligible and 
 tasteful, his exact thoughts and emotions. He tormented l-eporters, 
 proof-readers, and the printers who had the misfortune to be engaged 
 in putting one of his performances into type, not because this or that 
 word was or was not Saxon or Latin, but because it was inadequate to 
 convey perfectly his meaning. Mr. Kemble, a great Anglo-Saxon 
 scholar, once, in a company of educated gentlemen, defied anybody 
 present to mention a single Latin phrase in our language for which 
 lie could not furnish a more f rcible Saxon equivalent. " The impen- 
 etrability of matter " was sugc ested ; and Kemble, after half a minute's 
 reflection, answered, " The uu-thorough-fareableness of stuff." StiD, 
 no English writer would think of discarding such an abstract, but 
 convenient and accurate, term as " impenetrability," for the coarsely 
 concrete and terribly ponderous word which declares that there is 
 no possible thoroughfare, no road, by which we can penetrate that 
 substance which we call " matter," and which our Saxon forefathers 
 called " stuff." Wherever the Latin element in our language comes 
 
XXIV DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 In to express ideas and sentiments which were absent from the Anglo- 
 Saxon mind, Webster uses it without stint ; and some of the most 
 resounding passages of his eloquence owe to it their strange power to 
 suggest a certain vastness in his intellect and sensibility, which the 
 quaint, idiomatic, homely prose of his friend. Mason, would have been 
 utterly incompetent to convey. Still, he preferred a plain, plump, 
 simple verb or noun to any learned phrase, whenever he could employ 
 it without limiting his opulent nature to a meagre vocabulary, in- 
 competent fully to express it. 
 
 Yet he never departed from simplicity ; that is, he rigidly confined 
 hims(rlf to the use of such words as he had earned the right to use. 
 Whenever the report of one of his extemporaneous speeches came 
 before him for revision, he had an instinctive sagacity in detecting 
 every word that had slipped unguardedly from his tongue, which he 
 felt, on reflection, did not belong to liim. Among the reporters of 
 his speeches, he had a particular esteem for Henry J. Raymond, after- 
 wards so well known as the editor of the New York Times. Mr. 
 Raymond told me that, after he had made a report of one of Webster's 
 speeches, and had presented it to him for revision, his conversation 
 with him was always a lesson in rhetoric. " Did I use that phrase ? I 
 hope not. At any rate, substitute for it this more accurate definition." 
 And then again : " That word does not express my meaning. Wait 
 a moment, and I will give you a better one. That sentence is slovenly, 
 — that image is imperfect and confused. I believe, my young friend, 
 that you have a remarkable power of reporting what I say ; but, if 
 I said that, and that, and that, it must have been owing to the fact 
 that I caught, in the hurry of the moment, such expressions as I could 
 command at the moment ; and you see they do not accurately represent 
 the idea that was in my mind." And thus, Mr. Raymond said, the 
 orator's criticism upon his own speech would go on, — correction fol- 
 lowing correction, — until the reporter feared he would not have it 
 ready for the morning edition of his journal. 
 
 Webster had so much confidence in R ijonond's power of reporting 
 him ac curately, that, when he intended o make an important speech 
 in the Senate, he would send a note to him, asking him to come to 
 Washington as a personal favor ; for he knew that the accomplislied 
 editor had a rare power of apprehending a long train of reasoning, 
 and of so reporting it that the separate thoughts would not only be 
 exactly stated, but the relations of the thoughts to each other — a 
 much more difficult task — would be preserved throughout, and that 
 the argument would be presented in the symmetrical form in which 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXV 
 
 it existed in the speaker's mind. Then would follow, as of old, the 
 severe scrutiny of the phraseology of the speech ; and Webster would 
 give, as of old, a new lesson in rhetoric to the accomplished reporter 
 who was so capable of following the processes of his mind. 
 
 The great difficulty with speakers who may be sufficiently clear in 
 statement and cogent in argument is that turn in their discourse when 
 their language labors to become figurative. Imagery makes palpable 
 to the bodily eye the abstract thought seen only by the eye of the 
 mind ; and all orators aim at giving vividness to their thinking by thus 
 making their thoughts visible. The investigation of the process of 
 imagination by which this end is reached is an interesting study. Woe 
 to the speaker who is ambitious to rise into the region of imagination 
 without possessing the faculty ! Everybody remembers the remark of 
 Sheridan, when Tierney, the prosaic Whig leader of the English House 
 of Commons, ventured to bring in, as an illustration of his argument, 
 the fabulous but favorite bird of untrained orators, the plicenix, 
 which is supposed always to spring up alive out of its own ashes. 
 " It was," said Sheridan, " a poulterer's description of a phoenix." 
 That is, Tierney, from defect of imagination, could not lift his poetic 
 bird above the rank of a common hen or chicken. 
 
 The test that may be most easily applied to all efforts of the im- 
 agination is sincerity ; for, like other qualities of the mind, it acta 
 strictly within the limits of a man's character and experience. The 
 meaning of the word " experience," however, must not be confined to 
 what he has personally seen and felt, but is also to be extended to 
 every thing he has seen and felt through vital sympathy Avith facts, 
 scenes, events, and characters, which he has learned by conversation 
 with other men and through books. Webster laid great emphasis on 
 conversation as one of the most important sources of imagery as well 
 as of positive knowledge. " In my education,'' he once remarked to 
 Charles Sumner, " I have found that conversation with the intelli- 
 gent men I have had the good fortune to meet has done more for me 
 than books ever did ; for I learn more from them in a talk of half an 
 hour than I could possibly learn from their books. Their minds, in 
 conversation, come into intimate contact with my own mind ; and I 
 absorb certain secrets of their power, whatever may be its quality, 
 which I could not have detected in tlieir works. Converse, con- 
 verse,, CONVERSE with living men, face to face, and mind to mind, — 
 that is one of the best sources of knowledge." 
 
 But my present object is simply to give what may be called the 
 natural history of metaphor, comparison, image, trope, and the like 
 
j^vi DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 whether miagery be employed by an uneducated husbandman, or by 
 a fieat orator and writer. ]\Iany readers may recollect the anecdote 
 of the New Hampshire farmer, who was once complimented on the 
 extremely handsome appearance of a horse which he was somewhat 
 sullenly urging on to perform its work. " Yaas," was the churlish 
 reply, "the critter looks well enough, but then he is as slow as — as 
 — as — well, as slow as cold molasses." This perfectly answers to 
 Bacon's definition of imagination, as " thought immersed in matter." 
 I'he comparison is exactly on a level with the experience of the per- 
 son who used it. He had seen his good wife, on so many bitter winter 
 mornings, when he was eager for his breakfast, turn the molasses-jug 
 upside down, and had noted so often the reluctance of the congealed 
 sweetness to assume its liquid nature, that the thing had become to 
 him the visible image of the abstract notion of slowness of movement. 
 An imaginative dramatist or novelist, priding himself on the exactness 
 with which he represented character, could not have invented a more 
 appropriate comparison to be put into the mouth of an imagined New 
 England farmer. 
 
 The only objection to such rustic poets is, that a comparatively few 
 images serve them for a lifetime ; and one tires of such " originals " 
 after a iew days' conversation has shown the extremely limited num- 
 ber of apt illustrations they have added to the homely poetry of 
 agricultural life. The only person, belonging to this class, that I ever 
 met, who possessed an imagination which was continually creative in 
 quaint images, was a farmer by the name of Knowlton, who had spent 
 liftv years in forcin^r some few acres of the rocky soil of Cape Ann to 
 produce grass, oats, potatoes, and, it may be added, those ugly stone 
 walls which carefully distinguish, at the cape, one patch of miserable 
 sterile land from another. He was equal, in quickness of imaginative 
 illustration, to the whole crowd of clergymen, lawyers, poets, and 
 artists, who filled the boarding-houses of " Pigeon Cove"; and he was 
 absolutely inexhaustible in fresh and original imagery. On one hot 
 summer day, the continuation of fourteen hot summer days, when 
 there was fear all over Cape Ann that the usual scanty crops would be 
 ^sithered up by the intense heat, and the prayer for rain was in almost 
 every farmer's heart, I met i\Ir. Knowlton, as he was looking pliilo- 
 sopliically over one of his own sun-smitten fields of grass. Tliinking 
 that I was in full sympathy with his own feeling at the dolorous pros- 
 p;ict before his eyes, I said, in accosting him, that it was bad weather 
 for the farmers. He paused for half a minute ; and then his mind 
 flashed back on an incident of his weekly exjierience, — that of his 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXVll 
 
 wiie " ironing " the somewhat clamp clothes of the ^Monday's " wash 
 intr," — and he replied: "I see you've been talking with our farmers, 
 who are too stupid to know what's for their good. Ye see the spring 
 here was uncommonly rainy, and the ground became wet and cold ; 
 but now, for the last fortnight, God has been putting his flat-iron over 
 it, and 'twill all come out right in the end." 
 
 Thus Mr. Knowlton went on, year after year, speaking poetry 
 without knowing it, as Moliere's Monsieur Jourdain found he had 
 been speaking prose all his life without knowing it. But the concep- 
 tion of the sun as God's fiat-iron, smoothing out and warming the 
 Hioist earth, as a housewife smooths and warms the yet damp shirts, 
 stockings, and bed-linen brought into the house from the clothes-lines 
 in the yard, is an astounding illustration of that "familiar grasp of 
 things divine," which obtains in so many of our rustic households. 
 Dante or Chaucer, two of the greatest poets of the world, would, had 
 they happened to be " uneducated " men, have seized on just such an 
 image to express their idea of the Divine beneficence. 
 
 This natural, this instinctive operation of the imaginative faculty, 
 is often observed in children. Numberless are the stories told by fond 
 mothers of the wonderful things uttered by their babies, shortly after 
 they have left their cradles. The most striking peculiarity running 
 throuMi them all is the astonishing audacity with Avhich the child 
 treats the most sacred things. He or she seems to have no sense of 
 awe. All children are taught to believe that God resides above them 
 in the sky ; and I shall never forget the shock of surprise I felt at the 
 answer of a boy of five years — whom I found glorying over the 
 treasures of his first paint-box — to ray question: "Which color do 
 you like best ? " " Oh," he carelessly replied, '• I like best sky-blue, 
 
 God's color." And the little rogue went on, daubing the paper 
 
 before him with a mixture of all colors, utterly unconscious that he had 
 said any thing remarkable; and yet what Mrs. Browning specially 
 distinguishes as the characteristic of the first and one of the greatest 
 of English poets, Chaucer, namely, his " familiar grasp of things 
 Divine," could not have found a more appropriate illustration than in 
 this chance remark of a mere child, expressing the fearlessness of his 
 faith in the Almighty Father above him. 
 
 Now in all these instinctive operations of the imagination, whether 
 in the mind of a child or in that of a grown man, it is easy to discern 
 the mark of sincerity. If the child is petted, and urged by his mother 
 to display his brightness before a company of other mothers and other 
 babi(>s, he is in danger of learning early that trick of falsehood, which 
 
XXV iii DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 clino-.s to biin when he jjoes to school, when he leaves the school for 
 the college, and when he leaves the college for the pursuits of profes- 
 sional life. The farmer or mechanic, not endowed with " college 
 larnin'," is sure to become a bad declaimer, perhaps a demagogue, 
 when he abandons those natural illustrations and ornaments of his 
 speech which spring from his individual experience, and strives to 
 emulate the grandiloquence of those graduates of colleges who have 
 the heathen mythology at the ends of their fingers and tongues, and 
 -''an refer to Jove, Juno, Minerva, Diana, Venus, Vulcan, and Neptune, 
 as though they were resident deities and deesses of the college halls. 
 The trouble with most "uneducated" orators is, that they become 
 enamored of these shining gods and goddesses, after they have lost, 
 through repetition, all of their old power to give point or force to any 
 o-ood sentence of modern oratory. During the times when, to be a 
 speaker at Abolitionist meetings, the speaker ran the risk of being 
 pelted with rotten eggs, I happened to be present, as one of a small 
 antislavery audience, gathered in an equally small hall. Among the 
 speakers was an honest, strong-minded, warm-hearted young mechanic, 
 who, as long as he was true to his theme, spoke earnestly, manfully, 
 and well ; but alas ! he thought he could not close without calling in 
 some god or goddess to give emphasis — after the method of college 
 students — to his previous statements. He selected, of course, that un- 
 fortunate phantom whom he called the Goddess of Liberty. " Here, in 
 Boston," he thundered, " where she was cradled in Faneuil Hall, can it 
 be that Liberty should be trampled under foot, when, after two genera- 
 tions have passed, — yes, sir, have elapsed, — she has grown — yes, sir, 
 [ repeat it, has grown — grown up, sir, into a great man ? " The change 
 in sex was, in this case, more violent than usual; but how many 
 instances occur to everybody's recollection, where that poor Goddess 
 has been almost equally outraged, through a puerile ambition on the 
 part of the orator to endow her with an exceptional distinction by 
 senseless rhodomontade, manufactured by the word-machine which he 
 presumes to call his imagination ! All imitative imagery is the grave 
 of common-sense. 
 
 Now let us pass to an imagination which is, perhaps, the grandest in 
 American oratory, but which was as perfectly natural as that of the 
 " cold molasses," or " God's llat-iron," of the New England farmer, — as 
 natural, indeed, as the " sky-blue, God's color," of the New England 
 boy. Daniel Webster, standing on the heights of Quebec at an early 
 hour of a summer morning, heard the onlinary morning drum-beat 
 which called the garrison to their duty. Knowing that the British 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XX15 
 
 possessions belted the globe, the thought occurred to him that the 
 morning drum would go on beating in some English post to the time 
 when it would sound again in Quebec. Afterwards, in a speech on 
 President Jackson's Protest, he dwelt on the fact that our Revohi 
 tionary forefathers engaged in a war with Great Britain on a strict 
 question of principle, " while actual suffering was still afar off." IIow 
 could he give most effect to this statement ? It would have been easy 
 for him to have presented statistical tables, showing the wealth- 
 population, and resources of England, followed by an enumeration of 
 her colonies and military stations, all goini' to prove the enormous 
 strencTth of the nation against which the United American colonies 
 raised their improvised flag. But the thought which had heretofore 
 occurred to him at Quebec happily recurred to his mind the moment 
 it was needed ; and he flashed on the imagination an image of Bi itish 
 power which no statistics could have conveyed to the understanding, — 
 "a Power," he said, "which has dotted over the surface of the whole 
 globe with her possessions and military posts, wdiose morning drum 
 beat, following the sun, and keeping company with the hours, circles 
 the earth with one continuous and unbroken strain of the martial airs 
 of England." Perhaps a mere rhetorician might consider superfluous 
 the word " whole," as applied to " globe," and " unbroken," as follow^ 
 ing " continuous"; yet they really add to the force and majesty of the 
 expression. It is curious that, in Great Britain, this magnificent im- 
 personation of the power of England is so little known. It is certain 
 that it is unrivalled in British patriotic oratory. Not Chatham, not 
 even Burke, ever approached it in the noblest passages in which they 
 celebrated the greatness and glory of their country. Webster, it is 
 to be noted, introduced it in his speech, not for the purpose of exalt- 
 ing England, but of exalting our Revolutionary forefathers, whose 
 victory, after a seven years' war of terrible severity, waged in vin- 
 dication of a principle, was made all the more glorious from having 
 been w^on over an adversary so formidable and so vast. 
 
 It is reported that, at the conclusion of this speech on the Presi- 
 dent's Protest, John Sergeant, of Philadelphia, came up to the ciator, 
 and, after cordially shaking hands with him, eagerly asked, " Where, 
 Webster, did you get that idea of the morning drum-beat?" Like 
 other public men, accustomed to address legislative assemblies, he waa 
 naturally desirous of knowing the place, if place there was, where such 
 imasres and illustrations were to be found. The truth was that, if 
 .Webster had ever read Goethe's Faust, — which he of course never 
 had done, — he might have referred his old friend to that passage 
 
KXX DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 where Faust, gazing at the setting sun, aches to follow it in its course 
 for ever. " See," he exclaims, "• how the green-girt cottages shimmer 
 in the setting sun. He bends and sinks, — the day is outlived. Yonder 
 he hurries off, and quickens other life. Oh, that I have no Anng to lift 
 me fnjm the ground, to struggle after — for ever after — him ! I should 
 see, in everlasting evening beams, the stilly world at my feet, every 
 height on fire, every vale in repose, the silver brook flowing into golden 
 streams. The rugged mountain, with all its dark defiles, would not 
 then break my godlike course. Already the sea, with its heated bays, 
 opens on my enraptured sight. Yet the god seems at last to sink away. 
 But the new impulse wakes. I hurry on to drink his everlasting light, 
 — the day before me and the night behind, — and under me the waves." 
 In Faust, the wings of the mind follow the setting sun ; in Webster, 
 they follow the rising sun ; but the thought of each circumnavigates 
 the globe, in joyous companionship with the same centre of life, light, 
 and heat, — though the suggestion which prompts the sublime idea is 
 widely different. The sentiment of Webster, calmly meditating on 
 the heights of Quebec, contrasts strangely with the fiery feeling of 
 Faust, raging against the limitations of his mortal existence. A 
 humorist, Charles Dickens, who never read either Goethe or Webster, 
 has oddly seized on the same general idea : " The British enfpire," 
 
 he says, in one of his novels, — " on which the sun never sets, and 
 where the tax-gatherer never goes to bed." 
 
 This celebrated imaereof the British "drum-beat" is here cited sim- 
 ply to indicate the natural way in which all the faculties of Webster are 
 brought into harmonious co-operation, whenever he seriously discusses 
 any great question. His understanding and imagination, when both 
 are roused into action, always cordially join hands. His statement of 
 facts is so combined with the argument founded on them, that they 
 are interchangeable ; his statement having the force of argument, and 
 his argument having the " substantiality " which pi-operly belongs to 
 statement ; and to these he commonly adds an inuiginative illustration, 
 which gives increased reality to both statement and argument. Iii 
 rapidly turning over the leaves of the six volumes of his Works, one 
 can easily find numerous instances of this instinctive operation of his 
 mind. In his first Bunker Hill oration, he announces that ."the prin- 
 ciple of free governments adheres to the American soil. It is bedded 
 in it, immovable as its mountains." Again he says: "A call for 
 the representative system, wherever it is not enjoyed, and where there 
 is already intelligence enough to estimate its value, is perseveiingly 
 made. Where men may speak out, they demand it • where the bayoret 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXXI 
 
 is at their throats, they pray for it." And yet again: "If ilie true 
 spark of religious and civil liberty be kindled, it will burn. Human 
 agency cannot extinguish it. Like the earth's central fire, it may be 
 smothered for a time; the ocean may overwhelm it; mountains may 
 press it down ; but its inherent and unconquerable force will heave 
 both the ocean and the land, and at some time or other, in some place 
 or other, the volcano will break out, and flame up to heaven." It would 
 be difficult to find in any European literature a similar embodiment of 
 an elemental sentiment of humanity, in an image which is as elemental 
 as the sentiment to which it gives vivid expression. 
 
 And then with what majesty, with what energy, and with what 
 simplicity, can he denounce a political transaction which, had it not 
 attracted his ire, would hardly have survived in the memory of his 
 countrymen ! Thus, in his Protest against Mr. Benton's Expunging 
 Resolution, speaking for himself and his Senatorial colleague, he 
 says : " We rescue our own names, character, and honor from all 
 participation in this matter ; and, Avhatever the wayw^ard character of 
 the times, the headlong and plunging spirit of party devotion, or the 
 fear or the love of power, may have been able to bring about elscAvhere, 
 we desire to thank God that they have not, as yet, overcome the love 
 of liberty, fidelity to true republican principles, and a sacred regard 
 for the Constitution- in that State whose soil was drenched to a mire by 
 the first and best blood of the Revolution." Perhaps the peculiar 
 power of Webster in condemning a measure by a felicitous epithet, 
 such as that he employs in describing " the plunging spirit of party 
 devotion," was never more happily exercised. In that word " \)\nn- 
 ging," he intended to condense all his horror and hatred of a transaction 
 which he supposed calculated to throw the true principles of constitu- 
 tional government into a bottomless abyss of personal government, 
 where right constitutional principles would cease to have existence, as 
 well as cease to have authority. 
 
 There is one passage in his oration at the completion of the Bunker 
 Hill Monument, which may be quoted as an illustration of his power 
 of compact statement, and which, at the same time, may save readers 
 from the trouble of reading many excellent histories of the origin and 
 progress of the Spanish dominion in America, condensing, as it does, 
 all which such histories can tell us in a few smiting sentences. 
 " Spain," he says, " stooped on South America, like a vulture on its 
 prey. Every thing was force. Territories were acquired by fire and 
 Bword. Cities were destroyed by fire and sword. Hundreds of thou- 
 sands of human beings fell by fire and sword. Even conversion to 
 
XXXll DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 Christianity was attempted by fire and sword." One is reminded, in 
 this passage, of Macaulay's metliod of giving vividness to his confident 
 generalization of facts by emphatic repetitions of the same form of 
 ■words. The repetition of "fire and* sword," in this series of short, 
 sharp sentences, ends in forcing the reality of what the words mean 
 on the dullest imagination ; and the climax is capped by affirming 
 that "fire and sword" were the means by which the religion of peace 
 was recommended to idolaters, whose heathenism was more benignant, 
 and more intrinsically Christian, than the militai-y Christianity which 
 was forced upon them. 
 
 And then, again, how easily Webster's imagination slips in, at the 
 end of a comparatively bald enumeration of the benefits of a good 
 government, to vitalize the statements of his understanding ! " Every- 
 where," he says, " there is order, everywhere there is security. Every- 
 where the law reaches to the highest, and reaches to the lowest, to 
 protect all in their rights, and to restrain all from Avrong; and over all 
 hovers liberty, — that liberty for which our fathers fought and fell on 
 this very spot, with her eye ever watchful, and her eagle wing ever wide 
 outspread." There is something astonishing in the dignity given in 
 the last clause of this sentence to the American eagle, — a bird so 
 degraded by the rhodomontade of fifth-rate declaimers, that it seemed 
 impossible that the highest genius and patriotism could restore it to 
 its primacy among the inhabitants of the air, and its just eminence 
 as a symbol of American liberty. It is also to be noted, that Webster 
 here alludes to " the bird of freedom " only as it appears on the 
 American silver dollar that passes daily from hand to hand, where 
 the watchful eye and the outspread wing are so inartistically repre- 
 sented that the critic is puzzled to account for the grandeur of the 
 image wliich the orator contrived to evolve from the barbaric picture 
 on the ugliest and clumsiest of civilized coins. 
 
 The compactness of Webstei-'s statements occasionally reminds us 
 of the epigrammatic point which characterizes so many of the state- 
 ments of Burke. Thus, in presenting a memorial to Congress, signed 
 by many prominent men of business, against President Jackson's sys- 
 tem of finance, he saw at once that the Democrats would denounce it 
 as another manifesto of the "moneyed aristocracy." Accordingly 
 Webster introduced the paper to the attention of the Senate, with the 
 preliminary remark : " The memorialists are not unaware, that, if 
 rights are attacked, attempts will be made to render odious those 
 whose rights are violated. Power always seeks such subjects en 
 which to try its experiments." It is difficult to resist the impression 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXXill 
 
 that Webster must have been indebted to Burke for this maxim. 
 Again, we are dehided into the belief that Ave must be reading Burke, 
 when Webster refers to the minimum principle as the right one to be 
 followed in imposing duties on certain manufactures. " It lays the 
 impost," he says, " exactly where it will do good, and leaves the rest 
 free. It is an intelligent, discerning, discriminating principle ; not a 
 blind, headlong, generalizing, uncalculating operation. Simplicity, 
 undoubtedly, is a great beauty in acts of legislation, as well as in the 
 works of art ; but in both it must be a simplicity resulting from con- 
 gruity of parts and adaptation to the end designed ; not a rude gener- 
 alization, which either leaves the particular object unaccomplished, or, 
 in accomplishing it, accomplishes a dozen others also, which were not 
 desired. It is a simplicity wrought out by knowledge and skill ; not 
 the rough product of an undistinguishing, sweeping general principle." 
 
 An insenuous reader, who has not learned from his historical studies 
 that men generally act, not from arguments addressed to their under- 
 standings, but from vehement appeals which rouse their passions to 
 defend their seeming interests, cannot comprehend why Webster's 
 arguments against Nullification and Secession, which were apparently 
 unanswerable, and which were certainly unanswered either by Hayne 
 or Calhoun, should not have settled the question in debate between 
 the North and the South. Such a reader, after patiently following all 
 the turns and twists of the logic, all the processes of the reasoning 
 employed on both sides of the intellectual contest, would naturally 
 conclude that the pai-ty defeated in the conflict would gracefully 
 acknowledge the fact of its defeat ; and, as human beings, gifted with 
 the faculty of reason, would cheerfully admit the demonstrated results 
 of its exercise. He would find it difficult to comprehend why the 
 men who were overcome in a fair gladiatorial strife in the open ai-ena 
 of debate, with brain pitted against brain, and manhood against man- 
 hood, should resort to the rough logic of " blood and iron," when the 
 nobler kind of logic, that which is developed in the struggle of mind 
 with mind, had failed to accomplish the purposes which their hearts 
 and wills, independent of their understandings, were bent on accom- 
 plishing. 
 
 It may be considered certain that so wise a statesman as Webster — 
 a statesman whose foresight was so palpably the consequence of his 
 insight, and whose piercing intellect was so admirably adapted to read 
 events in their principles — never indulged in such illusions as those 
 which cheered so many of his own adherents, when they supposed his 
 triumph in argumentation was to settle a matter which was really based 
 
KXX'V DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 on oro-anic differences in the institutions of tbe two sections of the 
 Union. He knew perfectly well that, while the Webster men were 
 glor^nng in his victory over Calhoun, the Calhoun men were equally 
 jubilant in celebrating Calhoun's victory over him. Which of thera 
 had the better in the argument was of little importance in comparison 
 with the terrible fact that the people of the Southern States were 
 ■widening, year by year, the distance which separated them from the 
 people of the Northern States. We have no means of judging whether 
 Webster clearly foresaw the frightful civil war between the two 
 sections, which followed so soon after his own death. We only know 
 that, to him, it w^as a conflict constantly impending, and which could 
 be averted for the time only by compromises, concessions, and other 
 temporary expedients. Tf he allowed his mind to pass from the 
 pressing questions of the hour, and to consider the radical division 
 between the two sections of the country which were only formally 
 united, it would seem that he must have felt, as long as the institution 
 of negro slavery existed, that he was only laboring to postpone a con- 
 flict which it -was impossible for him to prevent. 
 
 But my present purpose is simply to indicate the felicity of Web- 
 ster's intrepid assault on the principles which the Southern disunionists 
 put forward in justification of their acts, Mr. Calhoun's favorite 
 idea was this, — that Nullification was a conservative principle, to be 
 exercised within the Union, and in accordance with a just interpreta- 
 tion of the Constitution. "To begin with nullification," Webster 
 retorted, " with the avowed intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to 
 secession, dismemberment, and general revolution, is as if one were 
 to take the plunge of Niagara, and cry out that he would stop half- 
 way do^vn. In the one case, as in the other, the rash adventurer must 
 go to the bottom of the dark abyss below, Avere it not that the abyss 
 has no discovered bottom." 
 
 How admirable also is his exposure of the distinction attempted to 
 be drawn between secession, as a State right to be exercised under the 
 provisions of what was called "the Constitutional Compact." and 
 revolution. " Secession," he says, " as a revolutionary right, is intelli- 
 gible ; as a right to be proclaimed in the midst of civil commotions, 
 and asserted at the head of armies, I can understand it. But aa 
 a practical right, existing under the Constitution, and in conformity 
 with its provisions, it seems to me nothing but a plain absurdity; 
 for it supposes resistance to government, under the authority of 
 government itself; it supposes dismemberment, without violating 
 the principles of union ; it supposes opposition to law, witliout 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXXV 
 
 crime , it supposes the total overthrow of government, without revo- 
 lution." 
 
 After putting some pertinent interrogatories — which are arguments 
 in themselves — relating to the inevitable results of secession, he adds, 
 that " every man must see that these are all questions which can arise 
 only after a revolution. They presuppose the breakiug up of the gov- 
 ernment. While the Constitution lasts, they are repressed"; — and 
 then, with that felicitous use of the imagination as a handmaid of the 
 understanding, which is the peculiar characteristic of his eloquence, he 
 closes the sentence by saying, that "they spring up to annoy and 
 startle us only from its grave," A mere reasoner would have stopped 
 at the word " repressed " ; the instantaneous conversion of " ques- 
 tions " into spectres, affrighting and annoying us as they spring up 
 from the grave of the Constitution, — which is also by implication 
 impersonated, — is the work of Webster's ready imagination ; and it 
 thoroughly vitalizes the statements which precede it. 
 
 A great test of the sincerity of a statesman's style is his moderation. 
 Now, if we take the whole body of Mr. Webster's speeches, whether 
 delivered in the Senate or before popular assemblies, during the 
 period of his opposition to President Jackson's administration, we may 
 well be surprised at their moderation of tone and statement. Every- 
 body old enough to recollect the singular virulence of political speech 
 at that period must remember it as disgraceful equally to the national 
 conscience and the national understanding. The spirit of party, always 
 sufficiently fierce and unreasonable, was then stimulated into a fury 
 resembling madness. Almost every speaker, Democrat or Whig, was 
 in that state of passion which is represented by the physical sign of 
 " foaming at the mouth." Few mouths then opened that did not imme- 
 diately begin to " foam." So many fortunes were suddenly wrecked by 
 President Jackson's financial policy, and the business of the country 
 was so disastrously disturbed, that, whether the policy was right or 
 wronjx, those who assailed and those who defended it seemed to be 
 equally devoid of common intellectual honesty. " I do well to be 
 angry," appears to have been the maxim which inspired Democratic and 
 Whiof orators alike : and what reason there was on either side was sub- 
 mersfed in the lies and libels, in the calumnies and caricatures, in the 
 defamations and execrations, which accompanied the citation of facts 
 and the affirmation of principles. Webster, during all this time, was 
 selected as a shining mark, at which every puny writer or speaker 
 who opposed him hurled his small or large contribution of verbal 
 rotten eggs ; and yet Webster was almost the only Whig statesman 
 
yxxvi DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 who preserved sanity of understanding during the whole progress ct 
 that political riot, in which the passions of men became the masters 
 of their understandings. Pious Whig fathers, who worshipped tlie 
 "godlike Daniel," went almost to the extent of teaching their chil- 
 dren to curse Jackson in their prayers ; equally pious Democratic 
 fathers brought up their sons and daughters to anathematize the fiend- 
 like Daniel as the enemy of human rights ; and yet, in reading Web- 
 ster's speeches, covering the whole space between 1832 and 1836, we 
 can hardly find a statement which an historian of our day would not 
 admit as a candid generalization of facts, or an argument which would 
 not stand the test of logical examination. Such an historian might 
 entirely disagree with the opinions of Webster ; but he would cer- 
 tainly award to him the praise of being an honest reasoner and an 
 honest rhetorician, in a time when reason was used merely as a tool of 
 party passion, and when rhetoric rushed madly into the worst excesses 
 of rhodomontade. 
 
 It is also to be said that Webster rarely indulged in personalities. 
 When we consider how great were his powers of sarcasm and invec- 
 tive, how constant were the provocations to exercise them furnished 
 by his political enemies, and how atrociously and meanly allusions to 
 his private affairs were brought into discussions which should have 
 been confined to refuting his reasoning, his moderation in this matter 
 is to be ranked as a great virtue. He could not take a glass of wine 
 without the trivial fact being announced all over the country as indis- 
 putable i^roof that he was an habitual drunkard, though the most 
 remarkable characteristic of his speeches is their temperance, — their 
 '• total abstinence " from all the intoxicating moral and mental 
 " drinks " which confuse the understanding and mislead the con- 
 science. He could not borrow money on his note of hand, like any 
 other citizen, without the circumstance being trumpeted abroad as 
 incontrovertible evidence that Nick Biddle had paid him that sura 
 to defend his diabolical Bank in the Senate of the United States. 
 The plain fact that his speeches were confined strictly to the exposi 
 tion and defence of sound opinions on trade and finance, and that it 
 was difficult to answer them, only confirmed his opponents in the 
 conviction that old Nick was at the bottom of it all. His great intel- 
 lect was admitted ; but on the high, broad brow, which was its mani- 
 festation to the eye, his enemies pasted the words, " To be let," or, 
 " For sale." The more impersonal he became in his statements and 
 arguments, the more trucuk^itly was he assailed by the personalities 
 of the political gossip and scandal-monger. Indeed, from the time he 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXXVll 
 
 first came to the front as a great lawyer, statesman, and patriot, he 
 was fixed upon by the whole crew of party libellers as a man whose 
 arguments could be answered most efficiently by staining his char- 
 acter. He passed through life with his head enveloped " in a cloud of 
 poisonous flies " ; and the head was the grandest-looking head that had 
 ever been seen on the American continent. It was so pre-eminently 
 noble and impi-essive, and promised so much more than it could possi- 
 bly perform, that only one felicitous sarcasm of party malice, amon^ 
 many thousands of bad jokes, has escaped oblivion ; and that was stolen 
 from Charles Fox's remark on Lord Chancellor Thurlow, as Fox once 
 viewed him sitting on the wool-sack, frowning on the English House 
 of Lords, which he dominated by the terror of his countenance, and by 
 the fear that he might, at any moment, burst forth in one of his short 
 bullying, thundering retorts, should any comparatively weak baron, 
 earl, marquis, or duke dare to oppose him. "■ Thurlow," said Fox, 
 " must be an impostor, for nobody can be as wise as he looks." The 
 American version of this was, " Webster must be a charlatan, for 
 no one can be as great as he looks." 
 
 But during all the time that his antagonists attempted to elude the 
 force of his arguments by hunting up the evidences of his debts, and 
 by trying to show that the most considerate, the most accurate, and the 
 most temperate of his lucid statements were the products of physical 
 stimulants, Webster steadily kept in haughty reserve his power of 
 retaliation. In his speech in reply to Hayne he hinted that, if he were 
 imperatively called upon to meet blows with blows, he might be found 
 fully equal to his antagonists in that ignoble province of intellectual 
 pugilism ; but that he preferred the more civilized struggle of brain 
 •with brain, in a contest which was to decide questions of principle. 
 In the Senate, where he could meet his political opponents face to 
 face, few dared to venture to degrade the subject in debate from the 
 discussion of principles to the miserable subterfuge of imputiufy bad 
 motives as a sufficient answer to good arguments ; but still many of 
 these dignified gentlemen smiled approval on the efforts of the low- 
 minded, small-minded caucus-speakers of their party, when they 
 declared that Webster's logic was unworthy of consideration, because 
 he was bought by the Bank, or bought by the manufacturers of Massa- 
 chusetts, or bought by some other combination of persons who were 
 supposed to be the deadl}' enemies of the laboring men of the country. 
 On some rare occasions Webster's wrath broke out in such smitinor 
 words that his adversaries were cowed into silence, and cursed the 
 infatuation which had led them to overlook the fact that the " Ionic* 
 
Xxxviii DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 machine" liad in it invectives more terrible than iti reasonings. Bui 
 generally he refrained from using the giant's power "like a giant"; 
 and it is almost pathetic to remember that, when Mr. Everett un- 
 dertook to edit, in 1851, the standard edition of his woiks, Webster 
 gave directions to expunge all peri5onalitieb from his speeches, even 
 when those personalities were the just punishment of unprovoked 
 attacks on his integrity as a man. Readers will look in vain, in this 
 edition of his works, for some of the most pungent passages which 
 originally attracted their attention in the first report of the Defence 
 of the Treaty of Washington. At the time these directions were 
 given, Webster was himself the object of innumerable personalities, 
 which were the natural, the inevitable results of his speech of the 
 7th of March, 1850. 
 
 It seems to be a law, that the fame of all public men shall be " half 
 disfame." We are specially warned to beware of the man of whom all 
 men speak well. Burke, complimenting his friend Fox for risking 
 every thing, even his " darling popularity," on the success of the East 
 India Bill, nobly says : " He is traduced and abused for his sup- 
 posed motives. He will remember, that obloquy is a necessary ingre- 
 dient in all true glory ; he will remember, that it was not only in the 
 Roman customs, but it is in the nature of Imman things, that calumny 
 and abuse are essential parts of triumph." 
 
 It may be said, however, that Webster's virtue in this general 
 abstinence from personalities is to be offset by the fact that he could 
 throw into a glance of his eye, a contortion of his face, a tone of his 
 voice, or a simple gesture of his hand, more scorn, contempt, and 
 hatred than ordinary debaters could express by the profuse use of all 
 the scurrilous terms in the English language. Probably many a sen- 
 tence, which we now read with an even pulse, was, as originally deliv- 
 ered, accompanied by such pointing of the finger, or such flashing of 
 the eye, or such raising of the voice, that the seemingly innocent 
 ■words were poisoned arrows that festered in the souls of those against 
 whom they were directed, and made deadly enemies of a number of 
 persons Avhom he seems, in his printed speeches, never to have men- 
 tioned without the respect due from one Senator to another. In his 
 speech in defence of the Treaty of Washington, he had to repel Mr. 
 Ingersoll's indecent attack on his integrity, and his dreadful retoit is 
 described by those who heard it as coming within the rules which 
 condemn cruelty to animals. But the '' noble rage " which prompted 
 him to indulge in such unwonted invective subsided with the occasion 
 that called it forth, and he was careful to have it expunged when the 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. XXxix 
 
 speech was reprinted. An eminent jiul^e of the Supreme Court of 
 Massachusetts, in commending the general dignity and courtesy which 
 characterized Webster's conduct of a case in a court of law, noted one 
 exception. " When," he said, " the opposite counsel had got him into 
 a corner, the way he ' trampled out ' was something frightful to behold. 
 The court itself could hardly restrain him in his gigantic efforts to 
 extricate himself from the consequences of a blunder or an oversiglit." 
 Great writers and orators are commonly economists in the use of 
 words. They compel common words to bear a burden of thought and 
 emotion, which mere rhetoricians, with all the resources of the lan- 
 guage at their disposal, would never dream of imposing upon them. 
 But it is also to be observed, that some writers have the power of 
 giving a new and special significance to a common word, by impressing 
 on it a wealth of meaning which it cannot claim for itself. Three 
 obvious examples of this peculiar power may be cited. Among poets, 
 Chaucer infused into the simple word " green " a poetic ecstasy which 
 no succeeding English poet, not even Wordsworth, lias ever rivalled, in 
 describing an English landscape in the month of May. Jonathan 
 Edwards fixed upon the term " sweetness " as best conveying his loftiest 
 conception of the bliss which the soul of the saint can attain to on earth, 
 or expect to be blessed witli in heaven ; but not one of his theological 
 successors has ever caught the secret of using " sweetness " in the 
 sense attached to it by him. Dr. Barrow gave to the word " rest," as 
 embodying his idea of the spiritual repose of the soul fit for heaven, 
 a significance which it bears in the works of no other great English 
 divine. To descend a little, Webster was fond of certain words, 
 commonplace enough in themselves, to which he insisted on imparting 
 a more than ordinary import. Two of these, which meet us contin- 
 ually in reading his speeches, are "interesting" and "respectable." 
 The first of these appears to him competent to express that rapture of 
 attention called forth by a thing, an event, or a person, which other 
 writers convey by such a term as " absorbing," or its numerous 
 Gfjuivalents. If we should select one passage from his works which, 
 more than any other, indicates his power of seeing and feeling, through 
 a process of purely imaginative vision and sympathy, it is that portion 
 of his Plymouth oration, where he places himself and his audience as 
 spectators on tlie barren shore, when the Mayfloiver came into view. 
 He speaks of " the interesting group upon the deck " of the little 
 vessel. The very word suggests that we are to have a very common- 
 place account of the landing, and the circumstances which followed it. 
 In an instant, however, we are made to " feel the cold which 
 
DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 benumbed, and listen to the winds which pierced " this " interesting '' 
 group ; and immediately after, the picture is flashed upon the imagi- 
 nation of "chilled and shivering childhood, houseless, but for a 
 mother's arms, couchless, but for a mother's breast," — an image which 
 shows that the orator had not only transported himself into a spectator 
 of the scene, but had felt his own blood " almost freeze " in intense 
 sympathy with the physical sufferings of the shelterless mothers and 
 
 children. 
 
 There is no word which the novelists, satirists, philanthropic 
 reformers, and Bohemians of our day have done so much to discredit, 
 and make dis-respectable to the heart and the imagination, as the 
 word " respectable." Webster always uses it as a term of eulog}'. 
 A respectable man is, to his mind, a person who performs all his du- 
 ties to his family, his country, and his God ; a person who is not only 
 virtuous, but who has a clear perception of the relation which con- 
 nects one virtue with another by " the golden thread " of moderation, 
 and who, whether he be a man of genius, or a business man of average 
 talent, or an intelligent mechanic, or a farmer of sound moral and 
 mental character, is to be considered " respectable " because he is one 
 of those citizens whose intelligence and integrity constitute the foun- 
 dation on which the Republic rests. As late as 1843, in his noble 
 oration on the completion of the Bunker Hill Monument, he declared 
 that if our American institutions had done nothing more than to pro- 
 duce the character of Washington, that alone would entitle them to the 
 respect of mankind. " Washington is all our own I ... I Avould 
 cheerfully put the question to-day to the intelligence of Europe and 
 the world, what character of the century, upon the whole, stands out 
 in the relief of history, most pure, most respectable^ most sublime ; and 
 I doubt not, that, by a suffrage approaching to unanimity, the answer 
 would be Washington ! " It is needless to quote other instances of the 
 peculiar meaning he put into the word " respectable," when we thus 
 find him challenging the Europe of the eighteenth century to name a 
 match for Washington, and placing "most respectable" after '^ most 
 pure," and immediately preceding " most sublime," in his enumera- 
 tion of tlie three qualities in which Washington surpassed all men of 
 bis century. 
 
 It has been often remarked that Webster adapted his style, even his 
 habits of mind and modes of reasoning, to the particular auditors he 
 desired to influence ; but that, whether he addressed an unorganized 
 crowd of people, or a jury, or a bench of judges, or the Senate of the 
 United States, he ever proved himself an orator of the first class. 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xli 
 
 His admirers commonly confine tliemselves to the admirable sagacity 
 with which he discriminated between the kind of reasoning proper to 
 be employed when he addressed courts and juries, and the kind of 
 reasoning which is most effective in a legislative assembly. The 
 lawyer and the statesman were, in Webster, kept distinct, except so 
 far as he was a lawyer Avho had argued before the Supreme Court 
 questions of constitutional law. An amusing instance of this abne- 
 gation of the lawyer, while incidentally bringing in a laAvyer'a 
 knowledge of judicial decisions, occurs in a little episode in his 
 debate with Mr. Calhoun, in 1849, as to the relation of Congress to 
 the Territories. Mr. Calhoun said that he had been told that the 
 Supi'eme Court of the United States had decided, in one case, that the 
 Constitution did not extend to the Territories, but that he was 
 "incredulous of the fact." "Oh!" replied Mr. Webster, "I can 
 remove the gentleman's incredulity very easily, for I can assure him 
 that the same thing has been decided by the United States courts over 
 and over again for the last thirty years." It will be observed, how- 
 ever, that Mr. Webster, after communicating this important item of 
 information, proceeded to discuss the question as if the Supreme 
 Court had no existence, and bases his argument on the plain terms of 
 the Constitution, and the plain facts recorded in the history of the 
 government established by it. 
 
 Macaulay, in his lively way, has shown the difficulty of manufactur- 
 ing English statesmen out of English lawyers, though, as lawyers, their 
 rank in the profession may be very high. " Their arguments," he says, 
 " are intellectual pi'odigies, abounding with the happiest analogies and 
 the most refined distinctions. The principles of their arbitrary science 
 being once admitted, the statute-books and the reports being once 
 assumed as the foundations of reasoning, these men must be allowed 
 to be perfect masters of logic. But if a question arises as to the pos- 
 tulates on which their whole system rests, if they are called upon to 
 vindicate the fundamental maxims of that system which they have 
 passed their lives in studying, these very men often talk the largu.age 
 of savages or of children. Those who have listened to a man of this 
 class in his own court, and who have witnessed the skill with which he 
 analyzes and digests a vast mass of evidence, or reconciles a crowd 
 of precedents which at first sight seem contradictoiy, scarcely know 
 him again when, a few hours later, they hear him speaking on the 
 other side of Westminster Hall in his capacity of legislator. They 
 can scarcely believe that the paltry quirks which are faintly heard 
 through a storm of coughing, and which do not impose on the plainest 
 
ilii I7ANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 country gentleman, can proceed from the same sharp and \'igorou3 
 intellect which had excited their admiration under the same roof, and 
 on the same day." And to this keen distinction between an English 
 lawyer, and an English lawyer as a member of the House of Commons, 
 may be added the peculiar kind of stmxly manliness which is demanded 
 in any person who aims to take a leading part in Parliamentary 
 debates. Erskine, probably tlie greatest advocate who ever appeared 
 in the English courts of law, made but a comparatively poor figure in 
 the House of Commons, as a member of the Whig opposition. " The 
 truth is, Erskine," Sheridan once said to him, '' you are afraid of Pitt, 
 and that is the flabby part of your character." 
 
 But Macaulay, in another article, makes a point against the leaders 
 of party themselves. His definition of Parliamentary government is 
 "government by speaking" ; and he declares that the most effective 
 speakers are commonly ill-informed, shallow in thought, devoid of 
 large ideas of legislation, hazarding the loosest speculations with the 
 utmost intellectual impudence, and depending for success on volubility 
 of speech, rather than on accuracy of knowledge or penetration of 
 intelligence. " The tendency of institutions like those of England," 
 he adds, " is to encourage readiness in public men, at the expense both 
 of fulness and of exactness. The keenest and most vigorous minds of 
 every generation, minds often admirably fitted for the investigation of 
 truth, are habitually employed in producing ai-guments such as no 
 man of sense would ever put into a treatise intended for publication, 
 arguments which are just good enough to be used once, when aided by 
 fluent delivery and pointed language." And he despairingly closes 
 with the remark, that he " w^ould sooner expect a great original work 
 on political science, such a work, for example, as the Wealth of 
 Nations, from an apothecary in a country town, or from a minister in 
 the Hebrides, than from a statesman wlio, ever since he was one-and- 
 twenty, liad been a distinguished debater in the House of Commons." 
 
 Now it is plain that neither of these contemptuous judgments 
 npi)lies to Webster. He Avas a great lawyer; but as a legislator the 
 precedents of the lawyer did not control the action or supersede the 
 principles of the statesman. lie was one of the most formidable 
 debaters that ever appeared in a legislative assembly ; and yet those 
 who most resolutely grappled with him in the duel of debate would 
 be the last to impute to him inaccuracy of knowledge or shallowness 
 of thought. He carried into the Senate of the United States a trained 
 mind, disciplined by the sternest culture of his faculties, disdaining 
 any plaudits which were not the honest reward of robust reasoning on 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xliii 
 
 generalized fiicts, and " gnivitating " in the direction of trutli, whether 
 he hit or missed it. In his case, at least, there was nothing in his 
 legal experience, or in his legislative experience, which would have 
 unfitted him for producing a work on the science of politics. The 
 best spef>'jhes in the House of Commons of Lord Palmerston and Lord 
 John Russell appear very weak indeed, as compared with the Reply to 
 Hayne, or the speecli on "• The Constitution not a Compact between 
 Sovereign States," or the speech on the President's Protest. 
 
 In this connection it may be said, when we remember the hot 
 contests between the two men, that there is something plaintive in 
 (^alhoun's dying testimony to Webster's austere intellectual conscien- 
 tiousness. Mr. Venables, who attended the South Carolina states- 
 man in h:s dying hours, wrote to Webster : " When your name was 
 mentioned he remarked that ' Mr. Webster has as high a standard of 
 truth as any statesman I have met in debate. Convince him, and he 
 cannot reply ; he is silenced ; he cannot look truth in the face and 
 oppose it by argument. I tliink that it can be readily perceived by 
 his manner when he felt the unanswerable force of a reply.' He 
 often spoke of you in my presence, and always kindly and most 
 respectfully." Now it must be considered that, in debate, the minds 
 of Webster and Calhoun had come into actual contact and collision. 
 Each really felt the force of the other. An ordinary duel might be 
 ranked among idle pastimes when compared with the stress and strain 
 and pain of their encounters in the duel of debate. A sword-cut or 
 pistol-bullet, maiming the body, was as nothing in comparison with 
 the wounds they mutually inflicted on that substance which was 
 immortal in both. It was a duel, or series of duels, in which mind 
 was opposed to mind, and will to will, and where the object appeared 
 to be to inflict moral and mental annihilation on one of the comba- 
 tants. There never passed a word between them on which the most 
 ingenious Southern jurists, in their interpretations of the "code" of 
 honor, could have found matter for a personal quarrel ; and yet these 
 two proud and strong personalities knew that they were engaged in a 
 mortal contest, in which neither gave quarter nor expected quarter. 
 Mr. Calhoun's intellectual egotism was as great as his intellectual 
 ability. He always supposed that he was the victor in every close 
 logical wrestle with any mind to which his own was opposed. He 
 never wrestled with a mind, until he met Webster's, which in tenacity, 
 grasp, and power was a match for his own. He, of course, thought 
 his antagonist was beaten by his superior strength and amplitude of 
 argumentation ; but it is still to be noted that he, the most redoubtable 
 
xliv DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 opponent tliat Webster ever encountered, testified, though in equivocal 
 terms, to Webster's intellectual honesty. When he crept, half dead, 
 into the Senate-Chamber to hear Webster's speech of the 7th of 
 March, 1850, he objected emphatically at the end to Webster's decla- 
 ration that the Union could not be dissolved. After declaring that 
 Callioun's supposed case of justifiable resistance came within the 
 definition of the ultimate right of revolution, which is lodged in all 
 oppressed communities, Webster added that he did not at that time 
 wish to cro into a discussion of the nature of the United States 
 government. " The honorable gentleman and myself," he said, *' have 
 broken lances sufficiently often before on that subject." "I have no 
 desire to do it now," replied Calhoun ; and Webster blandly retorted, 
 " I presume the gentleman has not, and I have quite as little." One is 
 reminded here of Dr. Johnson's remark, when he was stretched on a 
 sick-bed, with his gladiatorial powers of argument suspended by physi- 
 cal exhaustion. " If that fellow Burke were now present," the Doctor 
 humorously murmured, " he would certainly kill me." 
 
 But to Webster's eminence as a lawyer and a statesman, it is proper 
 to add, that he has never been excelled as a writer of state papers 
 among the public men of the United States. Mr. Emerson has a 
 phrase which is exactly applicable to these efforts of Webster's mind. 
 That phrase is, " superb propriety." Throughout his despatches, he 
 always seems to feel that he impersonates his country ; and the gravity 
 and weight of his style are as admirable as its simplicity and majestic 
 ease. " Daniel Webster, his mark," is indelibly stamped on them all 
 When the Treaty of Washington was criticised by the Whigs in the 
 English Parliament, Macaulay specially noticed the difference in the 
 style of the two negotiators. Lord Ashburton, he said, had compro- 
 mised the honor of his countiy by " the humble, caressing, wheedling 
 tone " of his letters, a tone which contrasted strangely with " the firm, 
 resolute, vigilant, and unyielding manner " of the American Secretary 
 of State. It is to be noticed that no other opponent of Sir Robert 
 Peel's administration, not even Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, 
 struck at the essential weakness of Lord Ashburton's despatches with 
 the force and sagacity which characterized Macaulay's assault on tlie 
 treaty. Indeed, a rhetorician and critic less skilful than Macaulay can 
 easily detect that " America " is. represented fully in Webster's 
 despatclies, while " Britannia " has a very amiable, but not very forci- 
 ble, representative in Lord Ashburton. Had Palmerston been tlie 
 British plenipotentiary, we can easily imagine how different would 
 have been the task imposed on Webster. As the American Secretary 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xlv 
 
 was generally in the right in every position he assumed, he would 
 probably have triumphed even over Palmerston ; but the letters of the 
 " pluckiest " of English statesmen would, we may be sure, have never 
 been criticised in the House of Commons as " humble, wheedling, and 
 caressing." 
 
 In addition, however, to his legal arguments, his senatorial speeches, 
 and his state papers, Webster is to be considered as the greatest oratoi 
 our country has produced in his addresses before miscellaneous assem- 
 blages of the people. In saying this we do not confine the remark to 
 such noble orations as those on the " First Settlement of New Eng- 
 land," " The Bunker Hill ^Monument," and " Adams and Jefferson," 
 but extend it so as to include speeches before great masses of people 
 who could be hardly distinguished from a mob, and who were under no 
 restraint but that imposed by their own self-respect and their respect 
 for the orator. On these occasions he was uniformly successfuL It is 
 impossible to detect, in any reports of these popular addresses, that he 
 ever stooped to employ a style of speech or mode of argument com- 
 monly supposed appropriate to a speaker on the " stump"; and yet he 
 was the greatest " stump " orator that our country has ever seen. He 
 seemed to delight in addressing five, or ten, or even twenty thousand 
 people, in the open air, trusting that the penetrating tones of his voice 
 would reach even the ears of those who were on the ragged edges of 
 the swaying crowd before him ; and he would thus speak to the sover- 
 eign people, in their unorganized state as a collection of uneasy and 
 somewhat belligerent individuals, with a dignity and majesty similar to 
 the dignity and majesty which characterized his arguments before the 
 Senate of the United States, or before a bench of judges. A large 
 portion of his published works consist of such speeches, and they rank 
 onlv second among the remarkable productions of his mind. 
 
 The question arises. How could he hold the attention of such 
 audiences without condescending to flatter their prejudices, or without 
 occasionally acting the part of the sophist and the buffoon ? Mucli 
 may be said, in accounting for this phenomenon, about his widely 
 extended reputation, his imposing presence, the vulgar curiosity to see 
 a man whom even the smallest country newspaper thought of sufficient 
 importance to defame, his power of giving vitality to simple words 
 which the most ignorant of his auditors could easily understand, and 
 the instinctive respect which the rudest kind of men feel for a grand 
 specimen of robust manhood. But the real, the substantial source of 
 his power over such audiences proceeded from his respect for them ; 
 and their respect for him was more or less consciously founded on the 
 perception of this fact. 
 
xlvi DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 Indeed, a close scrutiny of his speeches will show how conscien- 
 tiously he regards the rights of other minds, however inferior they 
 mav be to his own ; and this virtue, for it is a virtue, is never more 
 apparent than in his arguments and appeals addressed to popular 
 assemblies. No working-man, whether farmer, mechanic, factory 
 " hand," or day-laborer, ever deemed himself insulted by a word from 
 the lips of Daniel Webster ; he felt himself rather exalted in his own 
 esteem, for the time, by coming in contact with that beneficent and 
 comprehensive intelligence, which cherished among its favorite ideas a 
 scheme for lifting up the American laborer to a height of comfort and 
 respectability which the European laborer could hardly hope to attain. 
 Prominent politicians, men of wealth and influence, statesmen of high 
 social and political rank, may, at times, have considered Webster as 
 arrogant and bad-tempered, and may, at times, have felt disposed to 
 fasten a quarrel upon him ; even in iMassachusetts this disposition 
 broke out in conventions of the party to which he belonged ; but it 
 would be in vain to find a single laboring-man, whether he met Web- 
 ster in private, or half pushed and half fought his way into a mass 
 meeting, in order to get his ears into communication with the orator's 
 voice, who ever heard a word from him which did not exalt the dignity 
 of labor, or which was not full of sympathy for the laborer's occasional 
 sorrows and privations. Webster seemed to have ever present to his 
 mind the poverty of the humble home of his youth. His father, his 
 brothers, he himself, had all been brought up to consider manual 
 toil a dignified occupation, and as consistent with the exercise of all 
 the virtues which flourish under the domestic roof. More than this, it 
 may be said that, with the exception of a few intimate friends, his 
 sympathies to the last were most warmly with common laborers. 
 Indeed, if we closely study the private correspondence of this states- 
 man, who was necessarily brought into relations, more or less friendly, 
 with the conventionally great men of the world, European as well as 
 American, we shall find that, after all, he took more real interest in 
 Seth Peterson, and John Taylor, and Porter Wright, men connected 
 with him in fishing and farming, than he did in the ambassadors of 
 foreign states whom he met as Senator or as Secretary of State, or in 
 all the members of the polite society of Washington, New York, and 
 Boston. He was very near to Nature himself ; and the nearer a man 
 was to Nature, the more he esteemed him. Thus persons who super- 
 intended his farms and cattle, or who pulled an oar in his boat when 
 he ventured out in search of cod and halibut, thought " Squire Web- 
 ster " a man who realized their ideal and perfection of good-fellowship 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xlvii 
 
 while it may confidently be said that many of his closest friends 
 among men of culture, including lawyers, men of letters, and states- 
 men of the first rank, must have occasionally resented the " anfractu- 
 osities" of his mood and temper. But Seth Peterson, and Porter 
 Wright, and John Taylor, never complained of these " anfrac- 
 tuosities." Webster, in fact, is one of the few public men of tho 
 country in whose championship of the rights and sympathy with the 
 wroncrs of labor there is not the slightest trace of the arts of 
 the demagogue ; and in this fact we may find the reason why even the 
 '• roughs," who are present in every mass meeting, always treated him 
 •with respect. Perhaps it would not be out of place to remark here, 
 that, in his Speech of the 7th of March, he missed a grand opportunity 
 to vindicate Northern labor, in the reference he made to a foolish 
 tirade of a Senator from Louisiana, who " took pains to run a con- 
 trast between the slaves of the South and the laboring people of the 
 North, giving the preference, in all points of condition, of comfort, 
 and happiness, to the slaves of the South." Webster made a complete 
 reply to this aspersion on Northern labor ; but, as his purpose was to 
 conciliate, he did not blast the libeller by quoting the most eminent 
 example that could be named demonstrating the falsehood of the 
 slave-holding Senator's assertion. Without deviating from the con- 
 ciliatory attitude he had assumed, one could easily imagine him as lift- 
 ing his large frame to its full heiglit, flashing from his rebuking eyes 
 a glance of scorn at the " amiable Senator," and simply saying, " I 
 belong to the class which the Senator from Louisiana stigmatizes as 
 more desrraded than the slaves of the South." There was not at the 
 time any Senator from the South, except Mr. Calhoun, that the most 
 prejudiced Southern man would have thought of comparing with Web- 
 ster in respect to intellectual eminence ; and, if Webster had then and 
 there placed himself squarely on his position as the son of a Northern 
 laborer, we should have been spared all the rhetoric about Northern 
 " mud-sills," with which the Senate was afterwards afflicted. Web- 
 ster was our man of men ; and it would seem that he should have 
 crushed such talk at the outset, by proudly assnming that Northern 
 labor was embodied and impersonated in him, — that HE had sprung 
 from its ranks, and was proud of his ancestry. 
 
 An ingenious and powerful, but paradoxical thinker, once told me 
 tJiat I was mistaken in calling Jonathan Edwards and Daniel Webster 
 great reasoners. " They were bad reasoners," he added, " but great 
 poets." Without questioning the right of the author of " An Enquiry 
 into the Modern Prevailing Notion of that Freedom of the Will, which 
 
xlviii DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 is supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency," to be ranked among the 
 most eminent of modern logicians, I could still understand why be was 
 classed among poets ; for whether Edwards paints the torments of 
 hell or the bliss of heaven, his imagination almost rivals that of Dante 
 in intensity of realization. But it was at first puzzling to comprehend 
 why Webster should be depressed as a reasoner in order to be exalted 
 as a poet. The images and metaphors scattered over his speeches ar« 
 80 evidently brought in to illustrate and enforce his statements and 
 arguments, that, grand as they often are, the imagination displayed in 
 them is still a faculty strictly subsidiary to the reasoning power. It 
 was only after reflecting patiently for some time on the seeming 
 paradox that I caught a glimpse of my friend's meaning ; and it led 
 me at once to consider an entirely novel question, not heretofore 
 mooted by any of Webster's critics, whether friendly or unfriendly, in 
 their endeavors to explain the reason of his influence over tlie best 
 minds of the generation to which he belonged. In declaring that, as 
 a poet, he far exceeded any capacity he evinced as a reasoner, my 
 paradoxical friend must have meant that Webster had the poet's 
 power of so organizing a speech, that it stood out to the eye of the 
 mind as a palpable intellectual product and fact, possessing, not merely 
 that vague reality which comes from erecting a plausible mental 
 structure of deductive argumentation, based on strictly limited prem- 
 ises, but a positive reality, akin to the products of Nature herself, 
 when she tries her hand in constructing a ledge of rocks or rearing a 
 chain of hills. 
 
 In illustration, it may be well to cite the example of poets with 
 whom Webster, of course, cannot be compared. Among the gi-eat 
 mental facts, palpable to the eyes of all men interested in literature, 
 are such creations as the Iliad, the Divine Comedy, the great 
 Shakspearian dramas, the Paradise Lost, and Faust. The commen- 
 taries and criticisms on these are numerous enough to occupy the 
 shelves of a large library ; some of them attempt to show that Homer, 
 Dante, Sliakspeare, Milton, and Goethe were all ^\Tong in their 
 methods of creation; but they still cannot obscure, to ordinary vision, 
 the lustre of these luminaries as they placidly shine in the intellectual 
 firmament, which is literally over our heads. They are as palpable, 
 to the eye of the mind, as Sirius, Arcturus, the Southern Cross, 
 and the planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, are to the bodily 
 sense. M. Taine has recently assailed the Paradise Lost with the 
 happiest of French epigrams; he tries to prove that, in construc- 
 tion, it is the most ridiculously inartistic monstrosity that the imagi- 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. xlix 
 
 nation of a great mind ever framed out of chaos ; but, after we have 
 thoroughly enjoyed the play of his wit, there the Paradise Lost 
 remains, an undisturbed object in the intellectual heavens, disdaining 
 to justify its right to exist on any other grounds than the mere fact of 
 its existence ; and, certainly, not more ridiculous than Saturn himself, 
 as we look at him through a great equatorial telescope, swinging 
 through space encumbered with his clumsy ring, and his wrangling 
 family of satellites, but still, in spite of peculiarities on which M. 
 Taine might exercise his wit until doomsday, one of the most beauti 
 ful and sublime objects which the astronomer can behold in the whole 
 phenomena of the heavens. 
 
 Indeed, in reading critici^ns on such durable poetic creations and 
 organizations as we have named, one is reminded of Sydney Smith's 
 delicious chaffing of his friend Jeffrey, on account of Jeffrey's sensi- 
 tiveness of literary taste, and his inward rage that events, men, and 
 books, outside of him, do not correspond to the exacting rules which are 
 the products of his own subjective and somewhat peevish intelligence. 
 " I like," says Sydney, " to tell you these things, because you never do 
 so well as when you are humbled and frightened, and, if you could he 
 alarmed into the semblance of modesty, you would charm everybody ; 
 but remember my joke against you about the moon : ' D — n the solar 
 system! bad light — planets too distant — pestered with comets — 
 feeble contrivance ; could make a better with great ease.' " 
 
 Now when a man, in whatever department or direction of thought 
 his activity is engaged, succeeds in organizing, or even welding 
 together, the materials on which he works, so that the product, as a 
 whole, is visible to the mental eye, as a new creation or construction, 
 he has an immense advantage over all critics of his performance. 
 Refined reasonings are impotent to overthrow it ; epigrams glance off 
 from it, as rifle-bullets rebound when aimed at a granite wall ; and it 
 stands erect long after the reasonings and the epigrams are forgotten. 
 Even when its symmetry is destroyed by a long and destructive siege, 
 a pile of stones still remains, as at Fort Sumter, to attest what power 
 of resistance it opposed to all the resources of modern artillery. 
 
 If we look at Webster's greatest speeches, as, for instance, " The 
 Reply to Hayne," " The Constitution not a Compact between Sover- 
 eign States," "The President's Protest," and others that might be 
 mentioned, we shall find that they partake of the character of organic 
 formations, or at least of skilful engineering or architectural construc- 
 tions. Even Mr. Calhoun never approached him in this art of giving 
 objective reality to a speech, which, after all, is found, on analysis, to 
 
 d 
 
1 DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 consist only of a happy collocation and combination of words ; but in 
 Webster the words are either all alive with the creative spirit of the 
 poet, or, at the worst, resemble the blocks of granite or marble which 
 the artisan piles, one on the other, and the result of which, though it 
 may represent a poor style of architecture, is still a rude specimen of 
 a Gothic edifice. The artist and artificer are both observable in Web- 
 ster's work ; but the reality and solidity of the construction cannot be 
 questioned. At the present time, an educated reader would be specially 
 interested in the mental processes by which Webster thus succeeded in 
 giving objective existence and validity to the operations of his mind ; 
 and, whether sympathizing with his opinions or not, would as little 
 think of refusincr to read them because of their Whif^crism. as he would 
 think of refusing to read Homer because of his heathenism, or Dante 
 because of his Catholicism, or Milton because of his compound of 
 Arianism and Calvinism, or Goethe because of his Pantheism. The 
 fact which would most interest such a reader would be, that Webster 
 had, in some mysterious way, translated and transformed his abstract 
 propositions into concrete substance and form. The form might 
 offend his reason, his taste, or his conscience ; but he could not avoid 
 admitting that it had a form, while most speeches, even those made by 
 able men, are comparatively formless, hoAvever lucid they may be in 
 the array of facts, and plausible in the order and connection of argu- 
 ments. 
 
 In trying to explain this power, the most obvious comparison 
 which would arise in the mind of an intelligent reader would be, that 
 Webster, as a rhetorician, resembled Vaubun and Cohorn as military 
 engineers. In the war of debate, he so fortified the propositions he 
 maintained, that they could not be carried by du-ect assault, but must 
 be patiently besieged. The words he employed were simple enough, 
 and fell short of including the vocabulary of even fifth-rate declaimers ; 
 but he had the art of so disposing them that, to an honest reasoner, 
 the position he took appeared to be impregnable. To assail it by the 
 ordinary method of passionate protest and illogical reasoning, was as 
 futile as a dash of light cavalry would have been against the defences 
 of such cities as Namur and Lille. Indeed, in his speech, " The Consti- 
 tution not a Compact between Sovereign States," he erected a whole 
 Torres Vedras line of fortifications, on which legislative Massenas 
 dashed themselves in vain, and, however strong in numbers in respect 
 to the power of voting him down, recoiled defeated in every attempt 
 to reason him down. 
 
 In further illustration of this peculiar power of Webster, the Speech 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. li 
 
 •of the Ttli ol Mavcli, 1850, may be cited, for its delivery is to be ranked 
 with the most important historical events. For some years it was the 
 object of the extremes of panegyric and the extremes of execration. 
 But this effort is really the most loosely constructed of all the great pro- 
 ductions of Webster's mind. In force, compactness, and completeness, 
 in closeness of thought to things, in closeness of imagery to the reason- 
 iii<^ it illustrates, and in general intellectual fibre, muscle, and bone, it 
 cannot be compared to such an oration as that on the " First Settlement 
 of New England," or such a speech as that which had for its theme, 
 •' The Constitution not a Compact between Sovereign States " ; but, 
 after all deductions have been made, it was still a speech which frowned 
 upon its opponents as a kind of verbal fortress constructed both for the 
 purpose of defence and aggression. Its fame is due, in a great degree, 
 to its resistance to a storm of assaults, such as had rarely before been 
 concentrated on any speech delivered in either branch of the Congress 
 of the United States. Indeed, a very large portion of the intellect, the 
 moral sentiment, and the moral passion of the free States was directed 
 against it. There was not a weapon in the armory of the dialectician 
 or the rhetorician which was not employed with the intent of demolish- 
 ing it. Contempt of Webster was vehemently taught as the beginning 
 of political wisdom. That a speech, thus assailed, should survive the 
 attacks made upon it, appeared to be impossible. And yet it did 
 survive, and is alive now, while better speeches, or what the present 
 writer thought, at the time, to be more convincing speeches, have not 
 retained individual existence, however deeply they may have influ 
 enced that public opinion which, in the end, determines political 
 events. " I still live," was Webster's declaration on his death-bed, 
 when the friends gathered around it imagined he had breathed his 
 last ; and the same words might be uttered by the Speech of the 7th 
 of March, could it possess the vocal organ which announces personal 
 existence. Between the time it was originally delivered and the 
 present year there runs a great and broad stream of blood, shed from 
 the veins of Northern and Southern men alike ; the whole political 
 and moral constitution of the country has practically suffered an 
 abrupt change; new problems engage the attention of thoughtful 
 statesmen ; much is forgotten which w^as once considered of the first 
 importance ; but the 7th of March Speech, battered as it is by innu- 
 merable attacks, is still remembered at least as one which called forth 
 more power than it embodied in itself. This persistence of life is due 
 to the fact that it was "organized." 
 
 Is this power of organization common among orators? It seems to 
 
lii DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 me that, on the contrary, it is very rare. In some of Burke's speeches, 
 in which his sensibility and imagination were thoroughly under the 
 control of his judgment, as, for instance, his speech on Conciliation 
 with America, that on Economical Reform, and that to the Elec- 
 tors of Bristol, we find the orator to be a consummate master of the 
 art of so constructing a speech that it serves the immediate object 
 which prompted its delivery, while at the same time it has in it a 
 principle of vitality which makes it survive the occasion that called 
 it forth. But the greatest of Burke's speeches, if we look merely at 
 the richness and variety of mental power and the force and depth of 
 moral passion displayed in it, is his speech on the Nabob of Arcot'a 
 Debts. No speech ever delivered before any assembly, legislative, 
 judicial, or popular, can rank with this in respect to the abundance of 
 its facts, reasonings, and imagery, and the ferocity of its moral wrath. 
 It resembles the El Dorado that Voltaire's Candide visited, where the 
 boys played with precious stones of inestimable value, as our boys 
 play with ordinary marbles ; for to the inhabitants of El Dorado 
 diamonds and pearls were as common as pebbles are with us. 
 
 But the defect of this speech, which must still be considered, on the 
 whole, the most inspired product of Burke's great nature, was this, — 
 that it did not strike its hearers or readers as having reality for its 
 basis or the superstructure raised upon it. Englishmen could not 
 believe then, and most of them probably do not believe now, that 
 it had any solid foundation in incontrovertible facts. It did not 
 " fit in " to their ordinary modes of thought ; and it has never been 
 ranked with Burke's "organized" orations; it has never come home 
 to what Bacon called the " business and bosoms " of his countrymen. 
 They have generally dismissed it from their imaginations as " a 
 phantasmagoria and a hideous dream " created by Burke under the 
 impulse of the intense hatred he felt for the administration which 
 Bucceeded the overthrow of the government, which was founded on 
 the coalition of Fox and North. 
 
 Now, in simple truth, the speech is the most masterly statement of 
 facts, relating to the oppression of millions of the people of India, 
 which was ever forced on the attention of the House of Commons, — 
 a legislative assembly which, it may be incidentally remarked, was 
 practically responsible for the just government of the immense Indian 
 empire of Great Britain. It is curious that the main facts on Avhich 
 the argument of Burke rests have been confirmed by James Mill, the 
 coldt-st-blooded historian that ever narrated the enormous crimes 
 which attended the rise and progress of the British power in Hindos- 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. liii 
 
 tan, and a man who also bad a strong intellectual antipathy to the 
 mind of Burke. In making the speech, Burke had documentary 
 evidence of a large portion of the transactions he denounced, and had 
 divined the rest. lAIill supports him both as regards the facts of 
 which Burke had positive knowledge, and the facts which he deduc- 
 tively inferred from the facts he knew. Having thus a strong foundar 
 tion for his argument, he exerted every faculty of his mind, and every 
 impulse of his moral sentiment and moral passion, to overwhelm the 
 leading members of the administration of Pitt, by attempting to make 
 them accomplices in crimes which would disgrace even slave-traders 
 on the Guinea coast. The merely intellectual force of his reasoning is 
 crushing ; his analysis seems to be sharpened by his hatred ; and there 
 is no device of contempt, scorn, derision, and direct personal attack, 
 which he does not unsparingly use. In the midst of all this mental 
 tumult, inestimable maxims of moral and political wisdom are shot 
 forth in short sentences, which have so much of the sting and bril- 
 liancy of epigram, that at first we do not appreciate their depth of 
 thought; and through all there burns such a pitiless fierceness of 
 moral reprobation of cruelty, injustice, and -vf rong, that all the accred- 
 ited courtesies of debate are violated, once, at least, in every five 
 minutes. In any American legislative assembly he would have been 
 called to order at least once in five minutes. The images which the 
 orator brings in to give vividness to his argument are sometimes 
 coarse ; but, coarse as they are, they admirably reflect the moral tur- 
 pitude of the men against whom he inveighs. Among these is the 
 image with which he covers Dundas, the special friend of Pitt, with a 
 ridicule which promises to be immortal. Dundas, on the occasion 
 when Fox and Burke called for papers by the aid of which they pro- 
 posed to demonstrate the iniquity of the scheme by which the minis- 
 try proposed to settle the debts of the Nabob of Arcot, pretended that 
 the pioduction of such papers would be indelicate, — " that this inquiry 
 is of a delicate nature, and that the state will suffer detriment by the 
 exposure of this transaction." As Dundas had previously brought out 
 fiix volumes of Reports, generally confirming Burke's own views of the 
 corruption and oppression which marked the administration of affairs 
 in India, he laid himself open to Burke's celebrated assault. Dundas 
 and delicacy, he said, were " a rare and singular coalition." And then 
 follows an image of colossal coarseness, such as might be suj^posed 
 capable of rousing thunder-peals of laughter from a company of fes- 
 tive giants, — an image which Lord Brougham declared offended /lis 
 sensitive taste, — the sensitive taste of one of the most formidable 
 
llV DANIEL WEBSTEU 
 
 lef'al and legislative bullies that ever appeared before the juries or 
 Parliament of Great Britain, and who never hesitated to use any 
 illustration, however vulgar, which he thought would be effective to 
 degrade his opponents. 
 
 But whatever may be thought of the indelicacy of Burke's image, 
 it was one eminently adapted to penetrate through the thick hide of 
 the minister of state at whom it was aimed, and it shamed him as far 
 as a profligate politician like Dundas was capable of feeling the sen- 
 sation of shame. But there are also flashes, or rather flames, of impas- 
 sioned imagination, in the same speech, which rush up from the main 
 body of its statements and arguments, and remind us of nothing so 
 much as of those jets of incandescent gas Avhich, we are told by 
 astronomers, occasionally leap, from the extreme outer covering of the 
 sun, to the height of a hundred or a hundred and sixty thousand 
 miles, and testify to the terrible forces raging within it. After read- 
 ing this speech for the fiftieth time, the critic cannot free himself from 
 the rapture of admiration and amazement which he experienced in his 
 first fresh acquaintance with it. Yet its delivery in the House of 
 Commons (February 28, 1785) produced an effect so slight, that Pitt, 
 after a few minutes' consultation with Grenville, concluded that it was 
 not worth the trouble of being answered ; and the House of Commons, 
 obedient to the Prime Minister's direction, negatived, by a large 
 majority, the motion in advocating which Burke poured out the 
 wonderful treasures of his intellect and imagination. To be sure, the 
 House was tired to death with the discussion, was probably very 
 sleepy, and the'orator spoke five hours after the members had already 
 shouted, " Question ! Question ! " 
 
 The truth is, that this speech, unmatched though it is in the litera- 
 ture of eloquence, had not, as has been previously stated, the air of 
 reality. It struck the House as a magnificent Oriental dream, as an 
 Arabian Nights' Entertainment, as a tale told by an inspired madman, 
 ''full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"; and the evident par- 
 tisan intention of the orator to blast Pitt's administration by exhibit- 
 ing its complicity in one of the most enormous frauds recorded in 
 history, confirmed the dandies, the cockneys, the bankers, and the 
 country gentlemen, who, as members of the House of Commons, stood 
 by Pitt with all the combined force of their levity, their venality, 
 and their stupidity, in the propriety of voting Burke down. And 
 even now, when the substantial truth of all the facts he alleged is 
 establislufd on evidence which convinces historians, the admiring 
 reader can understand why it failed to convince Burke's contempo- 
 
At, A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. Iv 
 
 raries, and wliy it still appears to lack the characteristics of a speech 
 thoroughly organized. Indeed, the mind of Burke, when it was de- 
 livered, can only be compared to a volcanic mountain in eruption ; — 
 not merely a volcano like that of Vesuvius, visited by scientists and 
 amateurs in crowds, wdien it deigns to pour forth its flames and lava 
 for the entertainment of the multitude ; but a lonely volcano, like 
 that of Etna, rising far above Vesuvius in height, far removed from 
 all the vulgar curiosity of a body of tourists, but rending the earth on 
 which it stands with the mighty earthquake throes of its fiery centre 
 and heart. The moral passion, — perliaps it would be more just to 
 say the moral fury, — displayed in the speech, is elemental, and can be 
 compared to nothing less intense than the earth's interior fire and 
 heat. 
 
 Now in Webster's great legislative efforts, his mind is never exhib- 
 ited in a state of eruption. In the most excited debates in which he 
 bore a prominent part, nothing strikes us more than the admirable 
 self-possession, than the majestic inward calm, which presides over all 
 the operations of his mind and the impulses of his sensibility, so that, 
 in building up the fabric of his speech, he has his reason, imagination, 
 and passion under full control, — using each faculty and feeling as the 
 occasion may demand, but never allowing himself to be used by it, — 
 and always therefore conveying the impression of power in reserve, 
 while he may, in fact, be exercising all the power he has to the 
 utmost. In laboriously erecting his edifice of reasoning he also studi- 
 ously regards the intellects and the passions of ordinary men ; strives 
 to bring his mind into cordial relations with theirs ; employs every 
 faculty he possesses to give reality, to give even visibility, to his 
 thoughts ; and though he never made a speech which rivals that of 
 Burke on the Nabob of Arcot's Debts, in respect to grasp of under- 
 standing, astounding wealth of imagination and depth of moral passion, 
 he always so contrived to organize his materials into a complete whole, 
 that the result stood out clearly to the sight of the mind, as a structure 
 resting on strong foundations, and reared to due height by the mingled 
 skill of the artisan and the artist. When he does little more than 
 w^eld his materials together, he is still an artificer of the old school of 
 giant workmen, the school that dates its pedigree from Tubal Cain. 
 
 After all this wearisome detail and dilution of the idea attempted 
 to be expressed, it may be that I have failed to convey an adequate 
 impression of what constitutes Webster's distinction among orators, as 
 far as orators have left speeches which are considered an invaluable 
 addition to the literature of the language in which they were origi- 
 
ivl DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 nally delivered. Everybody understands why any one of the great 
 sermons of Jeremy Taylor, or the sermon of Dr. South on "Man 
 created in the Image of God," or the sermon of Dr. Barrow on 
 " Heavenly Rest," differs from the millions on millions of doubtless 
 edifying sermons that have been preached and printed during the 
 last two centuries and a half ; but everybody does not understand the 
 distinction between one brilliant oration and another, when both 
 made a great sensation at the time, while only one survived in litera- 
 ture. Probably Charles James Fox was a more effective speaker in 
 the House of Commons than Edmund Burke , probably Henry Clay 
 was a more effective speaker in Congress than Daniel Webster ; but 
 when th3 occasions on which their speeches were made are found 
 gradually to fade from the memory of men, why is it that the 
 speeches of Fox and Clay have no recognized position in literature, 
 while those of Burke and Webster are ranked with literary produc- 
 tions of the first class ? The reason is as really obvious as that which 
 explains the exceptional value of some of the efforts of the great 
 orators of the pulpit. Jeremy Taylor, Dr. South, and Dr. Barrow, 
 different as they were in temper and disposition, succeeded in " organ- 
 izing " some masterpieces in their special department of intellectual 
 and moral activity ; and the same is true of Burke and Webster in 
 the departments of legislation and political science. The " occasion " 
 was merely an opportunity for the consolidation into a speech of the 
 rare powers and attainments, the large personality and affluent 
 thouglit, which were the spiritual possessions of the man who made 
 it, — a speech which represented the whole intellectual manhood of 
 the speaker, — a manhood in which knowledge, reason, imagination, 
 and sensibility were all consolidated under the directing power of 
 will. 
 
 A pertinent example of the difference we have attempted to in- 
 dicate may be easily found in contrasting Fox's closing speech on 
 the East India Bill with Burke's on the same subject. For imme- 
 diate effect on the House of Commons, it ranks with the most mas- 
 terly of Fox's Parliamentary efforts. The hits on his opponents were 
 all ''telling." The argumentum ad hominem, embodied in short, 
 sharp statements, or startling interrogatories, was never employed 
 with more brilliant success. The reasoning was rapid, compact, en- 
 cumbered by no long enumeration of facts, and, though somewhat 
 unscrupulous here and there, was driven home upon his adversaries 
 with a skill that equalled its audacity. It may be said that there is 
 not a sentence in the whole speech which was not calculated to sting 
 
AS A MASTER OF EXGLISU STYLE. Ivii 
 
 a sleepy audience into attention, or to give delight to a fatigued 
 audience which still managed to keep its eyes and minds wide open. 
 Even in respect to the principles of liberty and justice, which were 
 the animating life of the bill, Fox's terse sentences contrast strangely 
 with the somewhat more lumbering and elaborate paragraphs of 
 Burke. " What," he exclaims, putting his argument in his favorite 
 interrogative form, — "what is the most odious species of tyranny? 
 Precisely that which this bill is meant to annihilate. That a hand- 
 ful of men, free themselves, should exercise the most base and abomi- 
 nable despotism over millions of their fellow-creatures ; that innocence 
 should be the victim of oppression ; that industry should toil for 
 rapine ; that the harmless laborer should sweat, not for his own bene- 
 fit, but for the luxury and rapacity of tyrannic depredation ; — in a 
 word, that thirty millions of men, gifted by Providence with the 
 ordinary endowments of humanity, should groan under a system of 
 despotism unmatched in all the histories of the world ? What is th« 
 end of all government ? Certainly, the happiness of the governed 
 Others may hold different opinions ; but this is mine, and I proclaim 
 it. What, then, are we to think of a government whose good fortune 
 is supposed to spring from the calamities of its subjects, whose aggran- 
 dizement grows out of the miseries of mankind? This is the kind 
 of government exercised under the East Indian Company upon the 
 natives of Hindostan ; and the subversion of that infamous govern 
 ment is the main object of the bill in question." . And afterwards he 
 says, with admirable point and pungency of statement : " Every line 
 in both the bills which I have had the honor to introduce, presumes 
 the possibility of bad administration ; for every word breathes sus- 
 picion. This bill supposes that men are but men. It confides in no 
 integrity ; it trusts no character ; it inculcates the wisdom of a jealousy 
 of power, and annexes responsibility, not only to every action, but 
 even to the inaction of those who are to dispense it. The necessity of 
 these provisions must be evident, when it is known that the different 
 misfortunes of the company have resulted not more from what their 
 gervants did, than from what the masters did not." 
 
 There is a directness in such sentences as these which we do not 
 find in Burke's speech on the East India Bill ; but Burke's remains as 
 a part of English literature, and in form and substance, especially in 
 substance, is so immensely superior to that of Fox, that, in quoting 
 sentences from the latter, one may almost be supposed to rescue them 
 from that neglect which attends all speeches which do not reach 
 beyond the occasion which calls them forth. In Bacon's phrase, the 
 
Iviii DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 speech of Fox shows "small matter, and infinite agitation of mt" 
 in Buike's, we discern large matter with an abundance of "wit" 
 proper to the discussion of the matter, but nothing which suggests 
 the idea of mere " agitation." Fox, in his speeches, subordinated every 
 thing to the immediate impression he might make on the House of 
 Commons. He deliberately gave it as his opinion, that a speech 
 that read well must be a bad speech ; and, in a literary sense, the 
 Hoase of Commons, which he entered before he was twenty, may be 
 called both the cradle and the grave of his fame. It has been said 
 that he was a debater whose speeches should be studied by every man 
 who wishes " to learn the science of logical defence " ; that he alone, 
 amoner Encrlish orators, resembles Demosthenes, inasmuch as his 
 reasoning is " penetrated and made red-hot by passion " ; and that 
 nothing could excel the effect of liis delivery when " he was in the full 
 paroxysm of inspiration, foaming, screaming, choked by the rushing 
 multitude of his words." But not one of his speeches, not even that 
 on the East India Bill, or on the Westminster Scrutiny, or on the 
 Russian Armament, or on Parliamentary Reform, or on Mr. Pitt's 
 Rejection of Bonaparte's Overtures for Peace, has obtained an abiding 
 place in the literature of Great Britain. It would be no disparage- 
 ment to an educated man, if it were said that he had never read these 
 speeches; but it would be a serious bar to his claim to be considered 
 an English scholar, if he confessed to be ignorant of the great speeches 
 of Burke; for such a confession would be like admitting that he had 
 never read the first book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Bacon's 
 Essays and Advancement of Learning, ^Milton's Areopagitica, Butler's 
 Analogy, and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. 
 
 When we reflect on the enormous number of American speeches 
 which, when they were first delivered, were confidently predicted, by 
 appreciating friends, to insure to the orators a fame which would be 
 immortal, one wonders a little at the quiet persistence of the speeches 
 of Webster in refusing to die with the abrupt suddenness of other 
 orations, which, at the time of their delivery, seemed to have an equal 
 chance of renown. The lifeless remains of such unfortunate faihires 
 are now entombed in that dreariest of all mausoleums, the dingy 
 quarto volumes, hateful to all human eyes, which are lettered on the 
 back with the title of "Congressional Debates," — a collection of 
 printed matter which members of Congress are wont to send to a favored 
 few among their constituents, and which are immediately consigned to 
 the dust-barrel or sold to pedlers in waste paper, according as the rage 
 of the recipients takes a scornful or an economical direction. It would 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. ILx 
 
 seem that tlie speeches of "Webster are saved from this fate, by the fact 
 tliat, in them, the mental and moral life of a great man, and of a 
 great master of the English language, are organized in a palpable intel- 
 lectual form. The reader feels that thoy have some of the substantial 
 qualities which he recognizes in looking at the gigantic constructions 
 of the master workmen among the crowd of the world's engineers and 
 architects, in looking at the organic products of Nature herself, and 
 in surveying, through the eye of his imagination, those novel repro- 
 ductions of Nature wliich great poets have embodied in works which 
 are indelibly stamped with the character of deathlessness. 
 
 But Webster is even more obviously a poet — subordinating "the 
 shows of things to the desires of the mind" — in his magnificent ideal 
 ization, or idolization, of the Constitution and the Union. By the magic 
 of his imagination and sensibility he contrived to impress on the minds 
 of a majority of the people of the free States a vague, grand idea that 
 the Constitution was a sacred instrument of government, — a holy shrine 
 of fundamental law, which no unhallowed hands could touch witliout 
 profanation, — a digested system of rights and duties, resembling 
 those institutes which were, in early times, devised by the immortal 
 gods for the guidance of infirm mortal man ; and the mysterious 
 creatures, half divine and half human, who framed this remarkable 
 document, were always reverently referred to as " the Fathers," — as 
 persons who excelled all succeeding generations in sagacity and wis- 
 dom ; as inspired prophets, who were specially selected by Divine 
 Providence to frame the political scriptures on which our political 
 faith was to be based, and by which our political reason was to be 
 limited. The splendor of the glamour thus cast over the imagi- 
 nations and sentiments of the people was all the more effective be- 
 cause it was an effluence from the mind of a statesman who, of all 
 other statesmen of the oountry, was deemed the most practical, and 
 the least deluded by any misguiding lights of fancy and abstract 
 speculation. 
 
 There can be little doubt that Webster's impressive idealization of 
 the Constitution gave a certain narrowness to American thinking on 
 constitutional government and the science of politics and legislation. 
 Foreigners, of the most liberal views, could not sometimes restrain an 
 expression of wonder, when they found that our most intelligent men, 
 even our jurists and publicists, hardly condescended to notice the 
 eminent European thinkers on the philosophy of government, so 
 absorbed were they in the contemplation of the perfection of their 
 own. When the great civil war broke out, hundreds of thousands of 
 
Ix DANIEL WEBSTER 
 
 American citizens marcLed to the battle-field with the grand passages 
 of Weljster glowing in their hearts. They met death cheerfully in 
 the cause of the " Constitution and Union," as by him expounded and 
 idealized ; and if they were so unfortunate as not to be killed, but 
 to be taken captive, they still rotted to death in Southern prisons, 
 sustained by sentences of Webster's speeches which they had de- 
 claimed as boys in their country schools. Of all the triumphs of 
 Webster as a leader of public opinion, the most remarkable was his 
 infusing into the minds of the people of the free States the belief 
 that the Constitution as it existed in his time was an organic fact, 
 springing from the intelligence, hearts, and wills of the people of the 
 United States, and not, as it really was, an ingenious mechanical con- 
 trivance of wise men, to which the people, at the time, gave their 
 assent. 
 
 The constitutions of the separate States of the Union were doubt- 
 less rooted in the habits, sentiments, and ideas of their inhabitants. 
 But the Constitution of the United States could not possess this 
 advantage, however felicitously it may have been framed for the pur- 
 pose of keeping, for a considerable period, peace between the different 
 sections of the country. As long, therefore, as the institution of negrc 
 slavery lasted, it could not be called a Constitution of States organi- 
 cally " United " ; for it lacked the principle of growth, which charac- 
 terizes all constitutions of government which are really adapted to the 
 progressive needs of a people, if the people have in them any impulse 
 Avhich stimulates them to advance. The unwritten constitution of 
 Great Britain has this advantage, that a decree of Parliament can alter 
 the whole representative system, annihilating by a vote of the two 
 houses all laws which the Parliament had enacted in former years. 
 In Great Britain, therefore, a measure which any Imperial Parliament 
 passes becomes at once the supreme law of the land, though it may 
 nullify a great number of laws which previous Parliaments had passed 
 under difTerent conditions of the sentiment of the nation. Our Con- 
 stitution, on the other hand, provides for the contingencies of growth 
 in the public sentiment only by amendments to the Constitution. 
 These amendments require more than a majority of all the political 
 forces represented in Congress; and Mr. Calhoun, foreseeing that a 
 collision must eventually occur between the two sections, carried with 
 h'.m, not only the South, but a considerable minority of the North, in 
 resisting any attempt to limit the extension of slavery. On this point 
 the passions and principles of the people of the slave-holding and the 
 majority of the people of the non-slave-holding States came into violent 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE. 1X1 
 
 opposition ; and there was no possibility that any amendment to the 
 Constitution could be ratified, which would represent either the 
 growth of the Southern people in their ever-increasing belief that 
 negro slavery was not only a good in itself, but a good which ought to 
 be extended, or the growth of the Northern people in their ever- 
 increasing hostility both to slavery and its extension. Thus two 
 principles, each organic in its nature, and demanding indefinite devel- 
 opment, came into deadly conflict under the mechanical forms of a 
 Constitution which was not organic. 
 
 A considerable portion of the speeches in this volume is devoted to 
 denunciations of violations of the Constitution perpetrated by Web 
 ster's political opponents. These violations, again, would seem to 
 prove that written constitutions follow practically the same law of 
 development which marks the progress of the unwritten. By a 
 strained system of Congressional interpretation, the Constitution 
 has been repeatedly compelled to yield to the necessities of the 
 party dominant, for the time, in the government ; and has, if we 
 may believe Webster, been repeatedly changed without being con- 
 stitutionally " amended."' The causes which led to the most terri- 
 ble civil war recorded in history were silently working beneath 
 the forms of the Constitution, — both parties, by the way, appeal- 
 ing to its provisions, — while Webster was idealizing it as the utmost 
 which humanity could come to in the way of civil government. In 
 1848, when nearly all Europe was in insurrection against its rulers, 
 he proudly said that our Constitution promised to be the oldest^ as well 
 as the best, in civilized states. Meanwhile the institution of negro 
 slavery was undermining the whole fabric of the Union. The moral 
 division between the South and North was widening into a division 
 between the religion of the two sections. The Southern statesmen, 
 economists, jurists, publicists, and ethical writers had adapted their 
 opinions to the demands which the defenders of the institution of 
 slavery imposed on the action of the human intellect and conscience ; 
 but it was rather startling to discover that the Christian religion, as 
 taught in the Southern States, was a religion which had no vital con- 
 nection with the Christianity taught in the Northern States. There 
 is nothing more astounding, to a patient explorer of the causes which 
 led to the final explosion, than this opposition of religions. The 
 mere form of the dogmas common to the religion of both sections 
 might be verbally identical ; but a volume of sermons by a Southern 
 doctor of divinity, as far as he touched on the matter of slavery, was 
 as different from one published by his Northern brother, in the essen 
 
Ixii D.'lXIKL WEBSTER 
 
 tial moral and humane elements of Christianity, as though they were 
 divided from each other by a gulf as wide as that which yawns between 
 a Druid priest and a Christian clergyman. 
 
 The politicians of the South, whether they were the mouthpieces 
 of the ideas and passions of their constituents, or were, as Webster 
 probably thought, more or less responsible for their foolishness and 
 bitterness, were ever eager to precipitate a conflict, which Webster 
 was as eager to prevent, or at least to postpone. It was fortunate for 
 the North, that the inevitable conflict did not come in 1850, when the 
 free States were unprepared for it. Ten years of discussion and prei>- 
 aration were allowed ; when the war broke out, it found the North in 
 a position to meet and eventually to overcome the enemies of the 
 Union ; and the Constitution, not as it was, but as it is, now represents 
 a form of government which promises to be permanent; for after 
 passing through its baptism of fire and blood, the Constitution con- 
 tains nothing which is not in harmony with any State government 
 fouiuled on the principle of equal rights which it guarantees, and is 
 proof against all attacks but those which may proceed from the 
 extremes of human folly and wickedness. But that, before the civil 
 war, it was preserved so long under conditions which constantly 
 threatened it with destruction, is due in a considerable degree to the 
 circumstance that it found in Daniel Webster its poet as well as ils 
 " expounder." 
 
 In conclusion it may be said that the style of Webster is pre-emi- 
 nently distinguished by manliness. Nothing little, weak, Avhining, or 
 sentimental can be detected in any page of the six volumes of his works. 
 A certain strength and grandeur of personality is prominent in all his 
 speeches. When he says " I," or " my," he never appears to indulge in 
 the bravado of self-assertion, because tlie words are felt to express a posi- 
 tive, stalwart, almost colossal manhood, which had already been implied 
 in the close-knit sentences in which he embodied his statements and 
 arguments. He is an eminent instance of the power which character 
 communicates to style. Though evidently proud, self-respecting, and 
 high-spirited, he is ever above mere vanity and egotism. Whenever 
 he gives emphasis to the personal pronoun the reader feels that he had 
 as much earned the right to make his opinion an authoritj% as he had 
 earned the right to use the words he employs to express his ideas ami 
 sentiments. Thus, in the celebrated Smith Will trial, his antagonist, 
 Mr. Choate, quoted a decision of Lord Chancellor Camden. In his 
 reply, Webster argued against its validity as though it were merely a 
 proposition laid down by Mr. Choate. "But it is not mine, it is Lord 
 
AS A MASTER OF ENGLISH STYLE, ixiii 
 
 Camden's," ^^'as the instant retort. Webster paused for half a mhiute, 
 and then, with his eye fixed on the presiding judge, he replied : " Lord 
 Camden was a great judge ; he is respected by every American, for 
 he was on our side in the Revolution ; but, may it please your honor, 
 /differ from my Lord Camden." There was hardly a lawyer in the 
 United States who could have made such a statement without exposing 
 himself to ridicule ; but it did not seem at all ridiculous, when the 
 '' I " stood for Daniel Webster, In his early career as a lawyer, his 
 mode of reasoning was such as to make him practically a thirteenth 
 juror in the panel ; when his fame was fully established, he contrived, 
 in some mysterious way, to seat himself by the side of the judges on 
 the bench, and appear to be consulting with them as a jurist, rather 
 than addressing them as an advocate. The personality of the man 
 was always suppressed until there seemed to be need of asserting it ; 
 and then it was proudly pushed into prominence, though rarely 
 passing beyond the limits which his acknowledged eminence as a 
 statesman and lawyer did not justify him in asserting it. Among 
 the selections in the present volume where his individuality becomes 
 somewhat aggressive, and breaks loose from the restraints ordinarily 
 self-imposed on it, may be mentioned his speech on his Reception at 
 Boston (1842), his Marshfield Speech (1848), and his speech at his 
 Reception at Buffalo (1851). Whatever may be thought of the 
 course of argument pursued in these, they are at least thoroughly 
 penetrated with a manly spirit, — a manliness somewhat haughty and 
 defiant, but still consciously strong in its power to return blow for 
 blow, from whatever quarter tlie assault may come. 
 
 But the real intellectual and moral manliness of Webster underlies 
 all his great orations and speeches, even those where the animating 
 life which gives them the power to persuade, convince, and uplift the 
 reader's mind, seems to be altogether impersonal ; and this plain force 
 of manhood, this sturdy grapple with every question that comes before 
 his understanding for settlement, leads him contemptuously to reject 
 all the meretricious aids and ornaments of mere rhetoric, and is 
 prominent, among the many exceptional qualities of his large nature, 
 which have given him a high position among the prose-writers of his 
 country as a consummate master of English style. 
 
THE GREAT ORATIONS AND SPEECHES 
 
 OP 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER. 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 AKGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AT 
 WASHINGTON, ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 1818. 
 
 [The action, The Trustees of Dartmouth 
 College V. William H. Woodward, was com- 
 menced in the Court of Common Pleas, 
 Grafton County, State of New Hampshire, 
 February term, 1817. The declaration was 
 trover for the books of record, original 
 charter, common seal, and other corporate 
 property of the College. The conversion 
 was alleged to have been made on the 7th 
 day of October, 1816. The proper pleas 
 were filed, and by consent the cause was 
 carried directly to the Superior Court of 
 New Hampshire, by appeal, and entered at 
 the May term, 1817. The general issue 
 was pleaded by the defendant, and joined 
 by the plaintiffs. The facts in the case 
 were then agreed upon by the parties, and 
 drawn up in the form of a special verdict, 
 reciting the charter of the College and the 
 acts of the legislature of the State, passed 
 June and December, 1816, by which the 
 said corporation of Dartmouth College was 
 enlarged and improved, and the said charter 
 amended. 
 
 The question made in the case was, 
 whether those acts of the legislature were 
 valid and binding upon the corporation, 
 without their acceptance or assent, and not 
 repugnant to the Constitution of the United 
 States. K so, the verdict found for the 
 defendants ; otherwise, it found for the 
 plaintiffs. 
 
 The cause was continued to the Sep- 
 tember term of the court in Kockingham 
 County, where it was argued ; and at the 
 November term of the same year, in Grafton 
 County, the opinion of the court was deliv- 
 ered by Ciiief Justice Richardson, in favor 
 of the validity and constitutionality of the 
 acts of the legislature; and judgment was 
 accordingly entered for the defendant on 
 the sneciai verdict. 
 
 Thereupon a writ of error was sued out 
 by the original plaintiffs, to remove the 
 cause to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States ; where it was entered at the term of 
 the court holden at Washington on the first 
 ^londay of February, 1818. 
 
 The cause came on for argument on the 
 10th day of March, 1818, before all the 
 judges. It was argued by Mr. Webster and 
 Mr. Hopkinson for the plaintiffs in error, 
 and by Mr. Holmes and the Attorney-Gen 
 eral (Wirt) for the defendant in error. 
 
 At the term of the court holden in Febru 
 ary, 1819, the opinion of the judges was de- 
 livered by Chief Justice Marshall, declaring 
 the acts of the legislature unconstitutional 
 and invalid, and reversing the judgment of 
 the State Court. The court/ with the ex- 
 ception of Mr. Justice Duvall, were unani- 
 mous. 
 
 The following was the argument of Mr. 
 Webster for the plaintiffs in error.] 
 
 The general question is, whether the 
 acts of the legislature of New Hamp- 
 shire of the 27th of June, and of the 
 ISth and 26th of December, 181G, are 
 valid and binding on the plaintiifs, with- 
 out their acceptance or assent. 
 
 The charter of 17G9 created and estab- 
 lished a corporation, to consist of twelve 
 persons, and no more; to be called the 
 " Trustees of Dartmouth College." The 
 preamble to the charter recites, that it \3 
 granted on the apiilication and request 
 of the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock: That Dr. 
 Wheelock, about the year 1754, estab- 
 lished a charity school, at hia own ex- 
 
2 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 pense, and on his own estate and plan- 
 tation : That for several years, through 
 the assistance of well-disposed persons 
 in America, granted at his solicitation, 
 he had clothed, maintained, and edu- 
 cated a number of native Indians, and 
 employed them afterwards as mission- 
 aries and schoolmasters among the sav- 
 age tribes : That, his design promising 
 to be useful, he had constitutefl the Rev. 
 Mr. Whitaker to be his attorney, with 
 power to solicit contributions, in Eng- 
 land, for the further extension and car- 
 rying on of his undertaking ; and that 
 he had requested tiie Earl of Dartmouth, 
 Baron Smith, ^Ir. Thornton, and other 
 gentlemen, to receive such sums as might 
 be contributed, in England, towards 
 supporting his school, and to be trustees 
 thereof, for his charity ; which these 
 persons had agreed to do : That there- 
 upon Dr. AVheelock had executed to 
 them a deed of trust, in pm-suance of 
 such agreement between him and them, 
 and, for divers good reasons, had re- 
 ferred it to these persons to determine 
 the place in which the school should be 
 finally established : And, to enable them 
 to form a proper decision on this subject, 
 had laid before them the several offers 
 which had been made to him by the sev- 
 eral governments in America, in order 
 to induce him to settle and establish his 
 school within the limits of such govern- 
 ments for their own emolument, and the 
 increase of learning in their respective 
 places, as well as for the furtherance of 
 his general original design : And inas- 
 much as a number of the proprietors of 
 lands in New Hampshire, animated by 
 the exajnple of the Governor himself 
 and others, and in consideration that, 
 ■without any impediment to its original 
 design, tlie school might be enlarged and 
 improved, to promote learning among 
 tlie Englisli, and to supply ministers to 
 the people of that Province, had prom- 
 ised largo tracts of land, provided the 
 school should be established in that 
 Province, the persons before mentioned, 
 ha\ ing weighed tlie reasons in favor of 
 tlie several places proposed, had given 
 the preference to this Province, and these 
 offers : 'J'hat Dr. AVheL'loek therefore 
 
 represented the necessity of a legal in- 
 corjxiration, and proiwsed that certain 
 gentlemen in America, whom he had 
 already named and appointed in his will 
 to be trustees of his charity after his de- 
 cease, should compose the corporation. 
 Upon this recital, and in consideration 
 of the laudable originaJ design of Dr. 
 Wheelock, and willing that the beat 
 means of education be established io 
 Xew Hampshire, for the benefit of the 
 Province, the king granted the charter, 
 by the advice of his Prorincial Council. 
 
 Tiie substance of the facts thus re- 
 cited is, that Dr. Wheelock had founded 
 a charity, on funds owned and procured 
 by himself ; that he was at that time 
 the sole dispenser and sole administra- 
 tor, as well as the legal owner, of these 
 funds ; that he had made his will, de- 
 vising this property in trust, to continue 
 the existence and uses of the school, and 
 appointed trustees ; that, in this state of 
 things, he had been invited to fix his 
 school permanently in Xew Hampshire, 
 and to extend the design of it to the 
 education of the youth of that Province; 
 that before he removed his school, or ac- 
 cepted this invitation, which his friends 
 in England had advised him to accept, 
 he applied for a charter, to be granted, 
 not to whomsoever the king or govern- 
 ment of the Province should please, but 
 to such persons as he named and ap- 
 pointed, namely, the persons whom he 
 had already appointed to be the future 
 trustees of his charity by his will. 
 
 The charter, or letters patent, then 
 proceed to create such a corporation, and 
 to appoint twelve persons to constitute 
 it, by the name of the " Trustees of 
 Dartmouth College"; to have perpetual 
 existence as such corporation, and with 
 power to hold and dispose of lands and 
 goods, for the use of the college, with 
 all the onlinary powers of corporations. 
 They are in their discretion to apply the 
 funds and property of the college to the 
 support of the president, tutors, minis- 
 ters, and other officers of the college, 
 and such missionaries and schoolmasters 
 as they may see fit to employ among tho 
 Indians. There are to be twelve ti .istees 
 for ever, and no more; and they are to have 
 
THE DART.MOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 '6 
 
 the right of filling vacancies occurring in 
 their own body. The Kev. Mr. Wlieelock 
 is declared to be the founder of the col- 
 lege, and is, by the charter, appointed 
 first president, with power to appoint a 
 successor by his last will. All proper 
 powers of government, superintendence, 
 and visitation are vested in the trustees. 
 They are to appoint and remove all 
 otficers at their discretion; to fix their 
 Balaiies, and assign their duties; and to 
 make all ordinances, orders, and laws 
 for the government of the students. To 
 the end that the persons who had acted 
 as depositaries of the contributions in 
 England, and who had also been con- 
 tributors themselves, might be satisfied 
 of the good use of their contributions, 
 the president was annually, or when re- 
 quired, to transmit to them an account 
 of the progress of the institution and the 
 disbursements of its funds, so long as 
 they should continue to act in that trust. 
 These letters patent are to be good and 
 effectual, in law, afjainst the king, his 
 heirs and successors for ever, without 
 further grant or confirmation; and the 
 trustees are to hold all and singular 
 these privileges, advantages, liberties, 
 and immunities to them and to their 
 successors for ever. 
 
 Xo funds are given to the college by 
 this charter. A corporate existence and 
 capacity are given to the trustees, with 
 the privileges and immunities which 
 have been mentioned, to enable the 
 founder and his associates the better to 
 manage the funds which they themselves 
 had contributed, and such others as they 
 might afterwards obtain. 
 
 After the institution thus created and 
 constituted had existed, uninterruptedly 
 and usefully, nearly fifty years, the legis- 
 lature of Xew Hampshire passed the 
 acts in question. 
 
 The first act makes the tw-elve trustees 
 under the charter, and nine other indi- 
 viduals, to be appointed by the Governor 
 and Council, a corporation, by a new 
 name ; and to this new corporation trans- 
 fers all the property, rights, powers, liber- 
 ties, and privileges of the old corporation ; 
 with fm-ther powet to establish new 
 colleges and an institute,, and to apply 
 
 all or any part of the funds to these 
 purposes; subject to the power and con- 
 trol of a board of twenty-five overseers, 
 to be appointed by the Governor and 
 Council. 
 
 The second act makes further pro- 
 visions for executing tne objects of the 
 first, and the last act authorizes the de- 
 fendant, the treasurer of the plaintiffs, to 
 retain and hold their property, against 
 their will. 
 
 If these acts are valid, the old corpora 
 tion IS abolished, and a new one created. 
 The first act does, in fact, if it can have 
 any effect, create a new corporation, and 
 transfer to it all the property and fran- 
 chises of the old. The two corporations 
 are not the same in anything which es- 
 sentially belongs to the existence of a 
 corporation. They have different names, 
 and different powers, rights, and duties. 
 Their organization is wholly different. 
 The powers of the corporation are not 
 vested in the same, or similar hands. 
 In one, the trustees are twelve, and no 
 more. In the other, they are twenty- 
 one. In one, the power is in a single 
 board. In the other, it is divided be- 
 tween two boards. Although the act 
 professes to include the old trustees in 
 the new corporation, yet that was with- 
 out their assent, and against their re- 
 monstrance ; and no person can be com- 
 pelled to be a member of such a corpora- 
 tion against his will. It was neither 
 expected nor intended that they should 
 be members of the new corporation. 
 The act itself treats the old corporation 
 as at an end, and, going on the ground 
 that all its functions have ceased, it pro- 
 vides for the first meeting and organiza- 
 tion of the new corporation. It express- 
 ly provides, also, that the new corpora- 
 tion shall have and hold all the property 
 of the old; a provision which woukl be 
 quite unnecessary upon any other ground, 
 than that the old corporation was dis- 
 solved. But if it could be contended 
 that the effect of these acts was not en- 
 tirely to abolish the old corporation, yet 
 it is manifest that they impair and in- 
 vade the rights, property, and powers of 
 the trustees under the charter, as a cor- 
 poration, and the legal rights, privileges, 
 
rilE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 and immunities which belong to them, 
 as individual members of the corporation. 
 
 The twelve trustees were the sole legal 
 owners of all the property acquired un- 
 der tlie charter. By the acts, others are 
 admitted, against their will, to be joint 
 owners. The twelve individuals who are 
 trustees were possessed of all the fran- 
 chises and immunities conferred by the 
 charter. By tlie acts, nine other trustees 
 and twenty-Jice overseers are admitted, 
 against their will, to divide these fran- 
 chises and immunities with them. 
 
 If, either as a corporation or as indi- 
 viduals, they have any legal rights, this 
 forcible intrusion of others violates those 
 rights, as manifestly as an entii-e and 
 complete ouster and dispossession. These 
 acts alter the whole constitution of the 
 corporation. They affect the rights of 
 the whole body as a coi-poration, and the 
 rights of the individuals who compose 
 it. They revoke corporate powers and 
 franchises. They alienate and transfer 
 the property' of the college to others. By 
 the charter, the trustees had a right to 
 fill vacancies in their own nimiber. This 
 is now taken away. They were to con- 
 sist of twelve, and, by express provision, 
 of no more. This is altered. They and 
 their successors, appointed by them- 
 selves, were for ever to hold the prop- 
 erty. The legislature has found suc- 
 cessors for them, before their seats are 
 vacant. The powers and privileges 
 which the twelve were to exercise exclu- 
 sively, are now to be exercised by others. 
 By one of the acts, they are subjected to 
 heavy penalties if they exercise their 
 offices, or any of those powers and privi- 
 leges granted them by charter, and which 
 tliey had exercised for fifty years. They 
 are to be punished for not accepting the 
 new grant and taking its benefits. This, 
 it must be confessed, is rather a sum- 
 mary mode of settling a question of con- 
 stitutional right. Not only are new 
 trustees forced into the corporation, but 
 new trusts and uses are created. The 
 college is turned into a university. Power 
 is given to create new colleges, and, to 
 authorize any diversion of the funds 
 wliich may be agreeable to the new- 
 boards, sulhcieut latitude is given by 
 
 the undefined power of establishing an 
 institute. To these new colleges, and 
 this institute, the funds contributed by 
 the founder. Dr. Wheelock, and by the 
 original donors, the Earl of Dartmouth 
 and others, are to be appliedf in plain 
 and manifest disregard of the uses to 
 which they were given. 
 
 The president, one of the old trusteea, 
 had a right to his office, salary, and 
 emoluments, subject to the twelve trus- 
 tees alone. Ilis title to these Is now 
 changed, and he is made accountable to 
 new masters. So also all the professors 
 and tutors. If the legislature can at 
 pleasure make these alterations and 
 changes in the rights and privileges of 
 the plaintiffs, it may, with equal pro- 
 priety, abolish these rights and privi- 
 leges altogether. The same power which 
 can do any part of this work can accom- 
 plish the whole. And, indeed, the ar- 
 gument on which these acts have been 
 hitherto defended goes altogether on the 
 ground, that this is such a corporation 
 as the legislature may abolish at pleas- 
 ure ; and that its members have no riijhis, 
 liberties, franchises, properly, or pricileyes, 
 which the legislatm'e may not revoke, 
 annul, alienate, or transfer to others, 
 whenever it sees fit. 
 
 It will be contended by the plaintiffs, 
 that these acts are not valid and binding 
 on them without their assent, — 
 
 1. Because they are against common 
 riiiht, and the Constitution of New 
 Hampshire. 
 
 2. Because they are repugnant to the 
 Constitution of the United States. 
 
 I am aware of the limits w hich bound 
 the jurisdiction of the com-t in this case, 
 and that on this record nothing can be 
 decided but the single question, whether 
 these acts are repugnant to the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. Yet it may 
 assist in forming an opinion of their 
 true nature and character to compare 
 them with those fundamental prmciples 
 introduced into the State governments 
 for the purpose of luniting the exercise 
 of the legislative power, and which the 
 Constitution of New Hampshire ex- 
 presses with great fulness and accu- 
 racy. 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 It is not too much to assert, that the 
 legislature of New Ilampsliire would not 
 have been competent to pass the acts in 
 question, and to make them binding on 
 the plaintiffs without their assent, even 
 if there had been, in the Constitution of 
 Xew Hampshire, or of the United States, 
 no special restriction on their power, be- 
 cause these acts are not the exercise of a 
 power properly legislative.* Their effect 
 and object are to take away, from one, 
 rights, property, and franchises, and to 
 grant them to another. This is not the 
 exercise of a legislative power. To jus- 
 tify the taking away of vested rights 
 there must be a forfeiture, to adjudge 
 upon and declare which is the proper 
 province of the judiciary. Attainder and 
 confiscation are acts of sovereign power, 
 not acts of legislation-. The British Par- 
 liament, among other unlimited pow- 
 ers, claims that of altering and vacating 
 charters ; not as an act of ordinary legis- 
 lation, but of uncontrolled authority. 
 It is theoretically omnipotent. Yet, in 
 modern times, it has very rarely at- 
 tempted the exercise of this power. In 
 a celebrated instance, those who asserted 
 this power in Parliament vindicated its 
 exercise only in a case in which it could 
 be shoxNTi, 1st. That the charter in ques- 
 tion was a charter of political power; 
 2d. That there was a great and over- 
 ruling state necessity, justifying the A-io- 
 lation of the charter ; 3d. That the char- 
 ter had been abused and justly forfeited. ^ 
 The bill affecting this charter did not 
 pass. Its history is well known. The 
 act which afterwards did pass, passed 
 with, the assent of the corporation. Even 
 in the worst times, this power of Parlia- 
 ment to repeal and rescind charters has 
 not often been exercised. The illegal 
 proceedings in the reign of Charles the 
 Second were under color of law. Judg- 
 ments of forfeiture were obtained in the 
 courts. Such was the case of the quo 
 u-arranto against the city of London, and 
 
 1 Calder et ux. v. Bull, 3 Dallas, 336. 
 
 2 Annual Register, 178-t, p. IGO; Pari. Reg. 
 1783; Mr. Burke's Speech on Mr. Fox's East 
 India Bill, Burke's Works, Vol. H. pp. 4U,417, 
 467, 468. 436. 
 
 8 1 Black. 472, 473 
 
 the proceedings by which the charter of 
 Massachusetts was vacated. 
 
 The legislature of Xew Hampshire has 
 no more power over the rights of the 
 plaintiffs than existed somewhere, in 
 some department of government, before 
 the Revolution. The P>ritish Parliament 
 could not have annulled or revoked this 
 grant as an act of ordinary legislation. 
 If it had done it at all, it could only 
 have been in virtiie of that sovereign 
 power, called omnipotent, which does 
 not belong to any legislature in the 
 United States. The legislature of ISTew 
 Hampshire has the same power over 
 this charter which belonged to the king 
 who granted it, and no more. By the 
 law of England, the power to create cor- 
 porations is a part of the royal preroga- 
 tive. ^ By the Revolution, this power 
 may be considered as having devolved 
 on the legislature of the State, and it 
 has accordingly been exercised by the 
 legislature. But the king cannot abol- 
 ish a corporation, or new-model it, or 
 alter its powers, without its assent. This 
 is the acknowledged and well-known 
 doctrine of the. common law. " What- 
 ever might have been the notion in for- 
 mer times," says Lord Mansfield, " it is 
 most certain now that the corporations 
 of the universities are lay coi^porations ; 
 and that the crown cannot take away 
 from them any rights that have been 
 formerly subsisting in them under old 
 charters or prescriptive usage." * After 
 forfeiture duly found, the king may re- 
 grant the franchises ; but a grant of 
 franchises already gi-anted, and of which 
 no forfeiture has been found, is void. 
 
 Coi"porate franchises can only be for- 
 feited by trial and judgTuent.' In case 
 of a new charter or grant to an existing 
 corporation, it may accept or reject it as 
 it pleases.® It may accept such part of 
 the grant as it chooses, and reject the 
 rest.'' In the very nature of things, a 
 charter cannot be forced upon any body. 
 
 4 3 Burr. 16.56. 
 
 6 King V. Pa.sniore, 3 Term Rep. 244. 
 
 6 King r. Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, 3 
 Burr. 1656 ; 3 Term Kep. 240, — Lord Kenyon. 
 
 T 3 Burr. 1661, and King v. Pasmore, ubi 
 supra. 
 
6 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 No one can be compelled to accept a 
 grant ; and without acceptance the grant 
 is necessarily void.^ It cannot be pre- 
 tended that the legislature, as successor 
 to the king in this part of his preroga- 
 tive, has any power to revoke, vacate, 
 or alter this charter. If, therefore, the 
 legislature has not this power by any 
 specific grant contained in the Constitu- 
 tion; nor as included in its ordinary 
 legislative powers ; nor by reason of its 
 succession to the prerogatives of the 
 crown in this particular, on what gi-ound 
 would the authority to pass these acts 
 rest, even if there were no proliibitory 
 clauses in the Constitution and the Bill 
 of Rights ? 
 
 But there are prohibitions in the Con- 
 stitution and Bill of Rights of Xew 
 Hampshire, introduced for the pm-pose 
 of limiting the legislative power and pro- 
 tecting the rights and property of the 
 citizens. One prohibition is, " that no 
 person shall be deprived of his property, 
 immunities, or privileges, put out of the 
 protection of the law, or deprived of 
 his life, liberty, or estate, but by judg- 
 ment of his peers or the law of the 
 land." 
 
 In the opinion, however, which was 
 given in the court below, it is denied 
 that the trustees under the charter had 
 any property, inuumiity, lilierty, or 
 privilege in this corporation, within the 
 meaning of this prohibition in the Bill 
 of Rights. It is said that it is a public 
 corporation and public property; that 
 the trustees have no greater interest in 
 it than any other individuals ; that it is 
 not private property, Avhich they can sell 
 or transmit to their heirs, and that there- 
 fore they have no interest in it; that 
 their office is a public trust, like that of 
 tlie Governor or a judge, and that they 
 have no more concern in the property 
 of the college than the Governor in the 
 property of the State, or than the judges 
 in the fines which they impose on the 
 culprits at tlieir bar; that it is nothing 
 to them whether their powers shall be 
 extended or lessened, any more than it 
 is to their honors whether their jurisdic- 
 
 1 Ellis r. Marshall, 2 Mass. Rep. 277 ; 1 Kyd 
 on Corporations, C5, C6. 
 
 tion shall be enlarged or diminished. It 
 is necessary, therefore, to inquire into 
 the true nature and character of the cor- 
 poration which was created by the char- 
 ter of 17G9. 
 
 Tliere are divers sorts of corporations ; 
 and it may be safely admitted that the 
 legislature has more power over some 
 than others.2 Some coi-porations are for 
 government and political arrangement; 
 such, for example, as cities, counties, 
 and towns in Xew England. These 
 may be changed and modified as public 
 convenience may require, due regard be- 
 ing always had to the rights of property. 
 Of such corporations, all who live with- 
 in the limits are of course obliged to be 
 members, and to submit to the duties 
 which the law imposes on them as such. 
 Other civil corporations are for the ad- 
 vancement of trade and business, such 
 as banks, insurance companies, and the 
 like. These are created, not by general 
 law, but usually by grant. Their con- 
 stitution is special. It is such as the 
 legislature sees fit to give, and the gran- 
 tees to accept. 
 
 The corporation in question is not a 
 civil, although it is a lay corporation. 
 It is an eleemosynary cori^oration. It is 
 a private charity, originally founded and 
 endowed by an individual, witli a char- 
 ter obtained for it at his request, for the 
 better administration of his charity. 
 " The eleemosynary sort of corporations 
 are such as are constituted for the per- 
 petual distributions of the free alms or 
 bounty of the founder of them, to such 
 persons as he has directed. Of this are 
 all hospitals for the maintenance of the 
 poor, sick, and impotent; and all col- 
 leges both in our univer.-^ities and out of 
 them. " ^ Eleemosynary corporations are 
 for the management of private property, 
 accordinsr to the will of the donors 
 Tliey are private corporations. A col- 
 lege is as nnich a private coiporation as 
 a hospital; especially a college founded, 
 as this was, by private bounty. A col- 
 lecre is a charitv. " The establishment 
 of learning," says Lord Ilardwicke, ■' ia 
 a charity, and so considered in the statr 
 
 2 1 Woodilofon, 474 ; 1 Hlaik. 4G7. 
 8 1 Black. 471. 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 nte of Elizabeth. A devise to a college, 
 for their benefit, is a laudable charity, 
 and deserves encourag(MU(>nt." ^ 
 
 Tiie legal signification of a charity is 
 derived chiefly from the statute 43 Eliz. 
 ch. 4. " Tliose purposes," says Sir Wil- 
 liam Grant, " are considered charitable 
 which that statute enumerates." ^ Col- 
 leges are enumerated as charities in 
 that statute. The government, in these 
 cases, lends its aid to perpetuate the be- 
 neficent intention of the donor, by grant- 
 ing a charter under wliich his private 
 charity shall continue to be dispensed 
 after his death. This is done either by 
 incorporating the objects of the charity, 
 as, for instance, the scholars in a college 
 or the poor in a hospital, or by incorpo- 
 rating those who are to be governors or 
 trustees of the charity.^ In cases of the 
 first sort, the founder is, by the common 
 law, visitor. In early times it became 
 a maxim, that he who gave the property 
 might regulate it in future. " Cujus est 
 dare, ejus est disponere." This I'ight of 
 visitation descended from the founder to 
 his heir as a right of property, and pre- 
 cisely as his other property went to his 
 heir ; and in default of heirs it went to 
 the king, as all other property goes to 
 the king for the want of heirs. The 
 right of visitation arises from the prop- 
 erty. It grows out of the endowment. 
 The foimder may, if he please, part with 
 it at the time when he establishes the 
 charity, and may vest it in others. 
 Therefore, if he chooses that governors, 
 trustees, or overseers should be appointed 
 in the charter, he may cause it to be 
 done, and his power of visitation may be 
 transferred to them, instead of descend- 
 ing to his heirs. The persons thus as- 
 signed or appointed by the founder will 
 be visitors, with all the powers of the 
 founder, in exclusion of his heir.'' The 
 right of visitation, then, accrues to them, 
 as a matter of property, by the gift, 
 transfer, or appointment of the founder. 
 This is a private right, which they can 
 assert in all legal modes, and in which 
 they have the same protection of the law 
 
 » 1 Ves. 537. 2 9 Ves. Jun. 405. 
 
 « 1 Wood. 474. * 1 Black. 471. 
 
 6 2 Term Rep. 350, 351. 
 
 as in all other rights. As visitors they 
 may make rules, ordinances, and stat- 
 utes, and alter and repeal them, as far 
 as permitted so to do by the charter. 
 Although the charter proceeds from the 
 crown or the government, it is considered 
 as the will of the donor. It is obtained 
 at his request. He imposes it as the 
 rule whicli is to prevail in the dispensa- 
 tion of his bounty in all future times. 
 The king or government which giants 
 the charter is not thereby the founder, 
 but he who furnishes the funds. The 
 gift of the revenues is the founda- 
 tion. ^ 
 
 The leading case on this subject is 
 Phillips V. BuryJ This was an eject- 
 ment brought to recover the rectory- 
 house, &c. of Exeter College in Oxford. 
 The question was whether the plaintiff 
 or defendant was legal rector. Exeter 
 College was founded by an individual, 
 and incorporated by a charter gi'anted 
 by Queen Elizabeth. The controversy 
 turned upon the pow-er of the visitor, 
 and, in the discussion of the cause, the 
 natm'e of college charters and corpora- 
 tions was very fully considered. Lord 
 Holt's judgment, copied from his own 
 manuscript, is found in 2 Term Reports. 
 346. The foUowdng is an extract: — 
 
 " That we may the better apprehend 
 tlie nature of a visitor, we are to consider 
 that there are in law two sorts of corpora- 
 tions aggregate ; such as are for public gov- 
 ernment, and such as are for private charity. 
 Those that are for the public government 
 of a town, city, mystery, or the like, being 
 for public advantage, are to be governed 
 according to the laws of the land. If they 
 make any particular private laws and con- 
 stitutions, the validity and justice of them 
 is examinable in the king's courts. Of these 
 there are no particular private founders, 
 .and consequently no particular visitor; 
 there are no patrons of these; therefore, if 
 no provision be in the charter how the suc- 
 cession shall continue, the law supplicth the 
 defect of that constitution, and saith it shall 
 be by election ; as mayor, aldermen, com- 
 mon council, and the like. But private and 
 particular corporations for charity, founded 
 and endowed b}- private persons, are sub- 
 ject to the private government of those 
 who erect them ; and therefore, if there be 
 
 8 1 Black. 480. 
 
 - 1 Lord Raymond, 5 ; Comb. 265 ; Holt, 
 715; 1 Shower, 300; 4 Mod. 106; Skinn. 44^ 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 no risitor appointed by the founder, the law 
 appoints the founder and his heirs to be 
 visitors, who are to act and proceed accord- 
 ing to the particular laws and constitutions 
 assigned them by the founder. It is now 
 admitted on all hands that the founder is 
 patron, and, as founder, is visitor, if no par- 
 ticular visitor be assigned ; so that patron- 
 age and visitation are necessary consequents 
 one upon another. For this visitatorial 
 power was not introduced by any canons or 
 constitutions ecclesiastical (as was said by 
 a learned gentleman whom I have in my 
 eye, in his argument of this case) ; it is an 
 appointment of law. It ariseth from the 
 property which the founder had in the 
 lands assigned to support tiio charity ; and 
 as he is the author of the charity, the law 
 gives him and his heirs a visitatorial power, 
 that is, an authority to inspect the actions 
 and regulate the behavior of the members 
 that partake of the charity. For it is fit 
 the members that are endowed, and that 
 have the charity bestowed upon them, 
 should not be left to themselves, but pursue 
 the intent and design of him that bestowed 
 it upon them. Now, indeed, where the poor, 
 or those that receive the dtarity, are not incorpo- 
 rated, but there are certain trustees who dispose 
 of the charity, there is no visitor, because the in- 
 terest of the revenue is not vested in the poor that 
 have the benefit of the charity, but they are sub- 
 ject to the orders and directions of the trustees. 
 But where they who are to erijoy the ben- 
 efit of the charity are incorporated, there 
 to prevent all perverting of the charity, or 
 to compose differences that may happen 
 among them, there is by law a visitatorial 
 power ; and it being a creature of the 
 founder's own, it is reason that he and his 
 heirs should have that power, unless by the 
 founder it is vested in some other. "Now 
 there is no manner of difference between a 
 college and a hospital, except only in de- 
 gree. A hospital is for those that are poor, 
 and mean, and low, and sickly ; a college is 
 for anotlier sort of indigent persons ; but it 
 hath another intent, to study in and breed 
 up persons in the world tiiathave no otlier- 
 wise to live; but still it is as much within 
 the reasons as hospitals. And if in a hos- 
 pital the master and poor are incorporated, 
 it is a college having a common seal to act 
 by. although it hath not the name of a col- 
 lege (which always supposeth a corpora- 
 tion), because it is of an inferior degree; 
 and in the one case and in the other there 
 must be a visitor, either the founder and his 
 heirs or one appointed by him; and both are 
 eleemosynary." 
 
 Lord Holt concludes his whole argu- 
 ment by again repeating, that that col- 
 lego wa,s a private corporation, and that 
 the founder had a right to api^oint a vLs- 
 
 1 1 Lord Raymond, 9. 
 
 itor, and to give him such power as he 
 saw fit.^ 
 
 The learned Bishop Stillingfleet's ar- 
 gument in the same cause, as a member 
 of the House of Lords, when it was 
 there heard, exhibits very clearly the 
 nature of colleges and similar corpora- 
 tions. It is to the following effect 
 "That this absolute and conclusive 
 power of visitors is no more than the 
 law hath appointed in other cases, upon 
 commissions of charitable uses : that the 
 common law, and not any ecclesiastical 
 canons, do place the power of visitation 
 in the founder and his heirs, unles.f he 
 settle it upon others: that although cor- 
 porations for public government be sub- 
 ject to the courts of Westminster Hall, 
 which have no particular or special 
 visitors, yet corporations for charity, 
 foimded and endowed by private per- 
 sons, are subject to the rule and govern- 
 ment of those that erect them; but 
 where the persons to whom the charity 
 is given are not incorporated, there is no 
 such visitatorial power, because the in- 
 terest of the revenue is not invested in 
 them; but where they are, the right of 
 visitation ariseth from the foundation, 
 and the founder may convey it to whom 
 and in what manner he pleases; and the 
 visitor acts as founder, and by the same 
 authority which he had, and consequently 
 is no more accountable than he had been: 
 that the king by his charter can make a 
 society* to be incorporated so as to have 
 the rights belonging to persons, as to 
 legal capacities: that colleges, although 
 founded by private persons, are yet in- 
 corporated by the king's charter; but al- 
 though the kings by their charter made 
 the colleges to be such in law, that is, to 
 be legal corporations, yet they left to the 
 particular founders authority to apjioint 
 what statutes they thought fit for tlie 
 regulation of them. And not only the 
 statutes, but the appointment of visitors, 
 was left to them, and the manner of gov- 
 ernment, and the several conditions on 
 which any persons were to be made or 
 continue partakers of their bomity." - 
 
 These opinions received the sanction 
 
 2 1 Burn's Eccles. Law, 443, Appendix 
 No. 3 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 9 
 
 of the House of Lords, and they seem 
 to be settled and undoubted law. Where 
 there is a charter, A-esting proper powers 
 in trustees, or governors, they are visit- 
 ors; and there is no control in anybody 
 else; except only that the courts of 
 equity or of law will interfere so far as to 
 preserve the revenues and prevent the 
 perversion of the funds, and to keep the 
 visitors within their prescribed bounds. 
 "K there be a charter with proper 
 powers, the charity must be regulated 
 in the manner prescribed by the charter. 
 There is no gi-ouud for the controlling 
 interposition of the coiuis of chancery. 
 The interposition of the courts, there- 
 fore, in those instances in which the 
 charities were founded on charters or by 
 act of Parliament, and a visitor or gov- 
 ernor and trustees appointed, must be 
 referred to the general jurisdiction of 
 the courts in all cases in which a trust 
 conferred appears to have been abused, 
 and not to an original right to direct the 
 management of the charity, or the con- 
 duct of the governors or trustees." ^ 
 " The original of all visitatorial power is 
 the property of the donor, and the power 
 every one has to dispose, dkect, and reg- 
 ulate his own property; like the case of 
 patronage; cujus est dare, &c. There- 
 fore, if either the cro^\^l or the subject 
 creates an eleemosynary foundation, and 
 vests the charity in the persons who are 
 to receive the benefit of it, since a con- 
 test might arise about the government 
 of it, the law allows the founder or his 
 heirs, or the person specially appointed 
 by him to be visitor, to determine con- 
 cerning his own creature. If the charity 
 is not vested in the persons who are to 
 partake, but in trustees for their benefit, 
 no visitor can arise by implication, but 
 the trustees have that power." 2 
 f ' ' There is nothing better established, ' ' 
 says Lord Commissioner Eyre, "than 
 that this court does not entertain a 
 general jm-isdiction, or regulate and 
 
 1 2 Focb. 205, 20G. 
 
 - Green v Rutherforth, 1 Ves. 472, per Lord 
 Hardwicke. 
 
 3 Attornev -General v. Foupdling Hospital, 
 2 Ves. .Tun. 47. See also 2 Kyd on Corpora- 
 tions, 195 ; Cooper's Equity Pleading, 292. 
 
 control charities estahlished hy charter. 
 There the establishment is fixed and 
 determined ; and the court has no poM-er 
 to vary it. If the governors established 
 for the regidation of it are not those 
 who have the management of the rev- 
 enue, this court has no jurisdiction, 
 and if it is ever so much abused, as far 
 as it respects the jurisdiction of this 
 court it is without remedy ; but if those 
 established as governors have also the 
 management of the revenues, this com-t 
 does assume a jurisdiction of necessity, 
 so far as they are to be considered as 
 trustees of the revenue." ^ 
 
 " The foiuidations of colleges," says 
 Lord IMansfield, "are to be considered 
 in two views; namely, as they are cnr- 
 porations and as they are eleemosynary. 
 As eleemosynary, they are the creatures 
 of the founder; he may delegate his 
 power, either generally or specially ; he 
 may prescribe particular modes and man- 
 ners, as to the exercise of i)art of it. If 
 he makes a general visitor (as by the 
 general words visitator sit) , the person so 
 constituted has all incidental ])ower ; but 
 he may be restrained as to particular in- 
 stances. The founder may appoint a 
 special visitor for a particular purpose, 
 and no further. The founder may make 
 a general \dsitor ; and yet appoint an in- 
 ferior particular power, to be executed 
 without going to the visitor in the first 
 instance. ' ' ■* And even if the king be 
 founder, if he grant a charter, incoi-po- 
 rating trustees and governors, they are 
 visitors, and the king cannot visit. ^ A 
 subsequent donation, or mgrafted fel- 
 lowship, falls under the same general 
 visitatorial power, if not otherwise spe- 
 cially provided." 
 
 In New England, and perhaps through- 
 out the United States, eleemos^Tiary cor- 
 porations have been generally established 
 in the latter mode ; that is, by incorpo- 
 rating governors, or trustees, and vesting 
 in them the right of visitation. Small 
 
 * St. John's College, Cambridge, v. Toding- 
 ton, 1 Burr. 200. 
 
 6 Attomev-General v. Middleton, 2 Ves. 
 328. 
 
 6 Green v. HutherfoTth, ubi supra St. John'i 
 College V. Todington, ubi supra. 
 
10 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 / 
 
 variations may have been in some in- 
 stances adopted; as in the case of Har- 
 vard CoUeg'r, where some power of 
 inspection is given to the overseers, but 
 not, strictly speaking, a visitatorial 
 power, which still belongs, it is appre- 
 hended, to the fellows or members of 
 the corporation. In general, there are 
 many donors. A charter is obtained, 
 comprising them all, or some of them, 
 and such others as they choose to include, 
 walh the right of appointing successors. 
 They are thus the visitors of then- otati 
 charity, and appoint others, such as they 
 may see fit, to exercise the same office 
 in time to come. All such coi-porations 
 Are private. The case before the court 
 is clearly that of an eleemosynary cor- 
 poration. It is, in the strictest legal 
 sense, a private charity. In King v. 
 St. Catherine's Hall,i that college is 
 called a private eleemosynary lay cor- 
 poration. It was endowed by a private 
 founder, and incorporated by letters 
 patent. And in the same manner was 
 Dartmouth College founded and incor- 
 porated. Dr. Wheelock is declared by 
 the charter to be its founder. It was 
 established by him , on funds contributed 
 and collected by himself. 
 
 As such founder, he had a right of 
 visitation, which he assigned to the trus- 
 tees, and they received it by his consent 
 and appointment, and held it under the 
 charter. ■■^ He appointed these trustees 
 visitors, and in that respect to take j^lace 
 of his heir ; as he might have ajipointed 
 devisees, to take his estate instead of his 
 heir. Little, probably, did he think, at 
 that time, that the legislature woidd ever 
 take away this property and these privi- 
 leges, and give them to others. Little 
 did he suppose that this charter secured 
 to him and his successors no legal rights. 
 Little did the other donors think so. If 
 they had, the college would have been, 
 what the university is now, a thing upon 
 paper, existing only in name. 
 
 The numerous academies in Xew 
 England have been established substan- 
 tially in the same manner. They hold 
 tlieir property by the same tenure, and 
 
 » 4 Term Rep. 233. 
 
 no other. Nor has Harvard College any 
 surer title than Dartmouth College. It 
 may to-day have more friends ; but to- 
 morrow it may have more enemies. Its -^ 
 legal rights are the same. So also of 
 Yale College; and, indeed, of all the 
 others. "\Mien the legislature gives to 
 these institutions, it may and does ac- 
 company its grants with such conditions 
 as it pleases. The grant of lands by 
 the legislature of New Hampshire to 
 Dartmoutli College, in 1789, was accom- 
 panied with various conditions. "When 
 donations are made, by the legislature or 
 others, to a charity already existing, 
 without any condition, or the specifica- 
 tion of any new use, the donation fol- 
 lows the nature of the charity. Hence 
 the doctrine, that all eleemosvTiary cor- 
 porations are private bodies. They are 
 foimded by private persons, and on pri- 
 vate property. The public cannot be 
 charitable in these institutions. It is 
 not the money of the public, but of pri- 
 vate persons, which is dispensed. It 
 may be public, that is general, in its 
 uses and advantages ; and the State may 
 very laudably add contributions of its 
 own to the funds; but it is still private 
 in tlie tenure of the property-, and m the 
 right of administering the funds. 
 
 If the doctrine laid down by Lord 
 Holt, and the House of Lords, in 
 Plililips V. Bury, and recognized and es- 
 tablished in all the other cases, be cor- 
 rect, the property of this college was 
 private property; it was vested in the 
 trustees by the charter, and to be ad- 
 ministered bv them, according to the 
 will of the founder and donors, as ex- 
 pressed in the charter. They were also 
 visitors of the charity, in the most ample 
 sense. They had, therefore, as they 
 contend, privileges, property, and im- 
 munities, within the true meaning of 
 the Bill of Rights. They had rights, 
 and still have them, which they can 
 assert against the legislature, as well as 
 against other wrong-doers. It makes 
 no difference, that the estate is holden 
 for certain trusts. The legal estate is 
 still theirs. They have a right in the 
 
 2 Black, ubi supra 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 11 
 
 property, and they have a right of visit- 
 ing and superintending the trust; and 
 this is an object of legal protection, as 
 much as any other right. The charter 
 declares that the powers conferred on 
 the trustees are " privileges, advantages, 
 liberties, and immunities"; and that 
 they shall be for ever holden by them 
 and their successors. The New Ilamp- 
 ehire Bill of Rights declares that no one 
 ehall be deprived of his " property, priv- 
 ileges, or immunities," but by judg- 
 ment of his peers, or the law of the land. 
 The argument on the other side is, that, 
 althougli these terms may mean some- 
 thing in the Bill of Rights, they mean 
 nothing in this charter. But they are 
 terms of legal signification, and very 
 properly used in the charter. They are 
 equivalent with franchhes. Blackstone 
 says th^t franchise and liberti/ are used 
 as sjmonymous terms. And after enu- 
 merating other liberties and franchises, 
 he says: " It is likewise a franchise for 
 a number of persons to be incorporated 
 and subsist as a body politic, with a 
 power to maintain perpetual succession 
 and do otlier corporate acts; and each 
 individual member of such a corporation 
 is also said to have a franchise or free- 
 dom." i 
 
 Liberties is the term used in Magna 
 Charta as including franchises, privi- 
 leges, immunities, and all the rights 
 which belong to that class. Professor 
 Sullivan says, the term signifies the 
 it privileges that some of the subjects, 
 whether single persons or bodies cor- 
 porate, have above others by the lawful 
 grant of the king; as the chattels of 
 felons or outlaws, and the lands and 
 privileges of corporations.''^ ^ 
 
 The privilege, then, of being a mem- 
 ber of a corporation, under a lawful 
 grant, and of exercising the rights and 
 powers of such member, is such a privi- 
 lege, liberty, or franchise, as has been 
 the object of legal protection, and the 
 subject of a legal interest, from the tune 
 of Magna Charta to the present moment. 
 Tlie plaintiffs have such an interest in 
 
 1 2 Black. Com. 37. 
 « Sull. 41st Lect. 
 
 this coqwration, individually, as they 
 could assert and maintain in a court of 
 law, not as agents of the public, but 'n 
 their o"\vn right. Each trustee has a 
 franchise, and if he be distm-bed in the 
 enjojTnent of it, he would have redress, 
 on appealing to the law, as promptly as 
 for any other injiuy. If the other trus- 
 tees should conspire against any one of 
 them to prevent his equal right and 
 voice in the appointment of a president 
 or professor, or in the passing of any 
 statute or ordinance of the college, he 
 would be entitled to his action, for de- 
 priving him of his franchise. It makes 
 no difference, that this property is to 
 be holden and administered, and these 
 franchises exercised, for the purpose of 
 diffusing learning. No principle and 
 no case establishes any such distinction. 
 The public may be benefited by the use 
 of this property. But this does not 
 change the nature of the property, or 
 the rights of the owners. The object of 
 the charter may be public good ; so it is 
 in all other corporations ; and this would 
 as well justify the resumption or viola- 
 tion of the grant in any other case as in 
 this. In the case of an advowson, the 
 use is public, and the right cannot be 
 turned to any private benefit or emolu- 
 ment. It is nevertheless a legal private 
 right, and the property of the owmer, 
 as emphatically as his freehold. The 
 rights and privileges of trustees, visit- 
 ors, or governors of incorporated col- 
 leges, stand on the same foundation. 
 They are so considered, both by Lord 
 Holt and Lord Ilardwicke.^ 
 
 To contend that the rights of the 
 plaintiifs may be taken away, because 
 they derive from them no pecuniary 
 benefit or private emolument, or be- 
 cause they cannot be transmitted to 
 their heirs, or would not be assets to 
 pay their debts, is taking an extremely 
 narrow view of the subject. According 
 to this notion, the case would be differ- 
 ent, if, in the charter, they had stipu- 
 lated for a commission on the disbm'se- 
 ment of the funds ; and they have ceased 
 
 8 Phillips V. Bury, and Green r. Rutheiforth, 
 ubi supra. See also 2 Black. 21. 
 
12 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 to liavc any interest in the property, 
 because they have undertaken to ad- 
 minister it gratuitously. 
 
 It cannot be necessary to say much in 
 refutation of the idea, that there cannot 
 be a legal interest, or o^v'nership, in any 
 thing which does not yield a pecuniary 
 profit; as if the law regarded no rights 
 but the rights of money, and of visible, 
 tangible property. Of what nature are 
 all rights of suffrage? No elector has a 
 particular personal interest; but each 
 has a legal right, to be exercised at his 
 own discretion, and it cannot be taken 
 away from him. The exercise of this 
 right directly and very materially affects 
 the public ; much more so than the ex- 
 ercbe of the privileges of a trustee of 
 this college. Consequences of the ut- 
 most magnitude may sometimes depend 
 on the exercise of the right of suffrage 
 by one or a few electors. Xobody was 
 ever yet heard to contend, however, 
 that on that account the public might 
 take away the right, or impair it. This 
 notion appears to be borrowed from no 
 better soiu'ce than the repudiated doc- 
 trine of the three judges in the Ayles- 
 bury case.^ That was an action against 
 a retiu'ning officer for refusing the plain- 
 tiff's vote, in the election of a member 
 of Parliament. Three of the judges of 
 the King's liench held, that the action 
 could not be maintained, because, among 
 other objections, " it was not any mat- 
 ter of profit, either in presend, or in 
 futuro." It would not enrich the plain- 
 tiff /n presenti, nor would it in futuro go 
 to his heirs, or answer to pay his debts. 
 But Lord Holt and the House of Lords 
 were of another opinion. The judg- 
 ment of the three judges was reversed, 
 lud the doctrine they held, having been 
 exploded for a century, seems now for 
 the first time to be revived. 
 
 Individuals have a right to use their 
 own property for purposes of benevo- 
 lence, either towards the public, or 
 towards other individuals. They have 
 a right to exercise this benevolence in 
 such lawful manner as they may choose ; 
 and when the government has induced 
 
 1 Ashby V. White, 2 Lord Raymond, 938. 
 
 and excited it, by contracting to give 
 perpetuity to the stipulated manner of 
 exercising it, it is not law, but violence, 
 to rescind this contract, and seize on the 
 property. Whether the State will grant 
 these franchises, and under what condi- 
 tions it will grant them, it decides for 
 itself. But when once granted, the con- 
 stitution holds them to be sacred, till 
 forfeited for just cause. 
 
 That all property, of which the use 
 may be beneficial to the public, belongs 
 therefore to the public, is quite a new 
 doctrine. It has no precedent, and ia 
 supported by no kno\vn principle. Dr. 
 Wheelock might have answered his pur- 
 poses, in this case, by executing a pri- 
 vate deed of trust. He might have 
 conveyed his property to trustees, for 
 precisely such uses as are described in 
 this charter. Indeed, it appears that he 
 had contemplated the establishing of 
 his school in that manner, and had 
 made his will, and devised the property* 
 to the same persons who were after- 
 wards appointed trustees in the charter. 
 Many literary and other charitable in- 
 stitutions are founded in that manner, 
 and the trust is renewed, and conferred 
 on other persons, from time to time, as 
 occasion may require. In such a case, 
 no law}-er would or could say, that the 
 legislature might divest the trustees, 
 constituted by deed or will, seize upon 
 the property, and give it to other per- 
 sons, for other purposes. And does the 
 granting of a charter, which is only 
 done to perpetuate the trust in a more 
 convenient manner, make any differ- 
 ence? Does or can this change tlie 
 nature of the charity, and turn it into a 
 public political corporation? Happily, 
 we are not without authority on this 
 point. It has been considered and ad- 
 judged. Lord Hardwicke says, in so 
 many words, " The charter of the crown 
 cannot make a charity more or less pub- 
 lic, but only more j^ermanent than it 
 would otlierwise be."^ 
 
 The granting of the corjioration is but 
 making the trust perpetual, and does 
 not alter the nature of the charity. The 
 
 2 Attorney-General v. Pearce, 2 A'.k. 87. 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 13 
 
 very object sought in obtaining such 
 cliarter, and in giving pi-operty to such 
 a corporation, is to make and keep it 
 private property, and to clothe it with 
 all the security and inviolability of pri- 
 vate property. The intent is, that there 
 shall be a legal private ownership, and 
 that the legal owners shall maintain and 
 protect the property, for the benefit of 
 those for whose use it was designed. 
 AVho ever endowed the public? Who 
 ever appointed a legislatui-e to adminis- 
 ter his charity? Or who ever heard, 
 before, that a gift to a college, or a hos- 
 pital, or au asylum, was, in reality, 
 notliing but a gift to the State? 
 
 The State of Vermont is a principal 
 donor to Dartmouth College. The lands 
 given lie in that State. This appears in 
 the special verdict. Is Vermont to be 
 considered as having intended a gift to 
 the State of New Hampshire in this 
 case, as, it has been said, is to be the 
 reasonable construction of all donations 
 to the college? The legislature of New 
 Hampshire affects to represent the pub- 
 lic, and therefore claims a right to con- 
 trol all property destined to public use. 
 "What hinders Vermont from consider- 
 ing herself equally the representative 
 of the public, and from resuming her 
 grants, at her own pleasure? Her right 
 to do so is less doubtful than the power 
 of New Hampshii-e to pass the laws in 
 question. 
 
 In University v. Foy,'^ the Supreme 
 Court of North Carolina pronounced un- 
 constitutional and void a law repealing 
 a gTant to the University of North Caro- 
 lina, although that university was origi- 
 nally erected and endowed by a statute 
 of the State. That case was a grant of 
 lauds, and the court decided that it 
 could not be resumed. This is the 
 grant of a power and capacity to hold 
 lands. Where is the difference of the 
 cases, upon principle? 
 
 In Terrett v. Taylor,'^ this court de- 
 cided that a legislative grant or confir- 
 mation of lands, for the purposes of 
 moral and religious instruction, could 
 no more bo rescinded than other grants. 
 
 1 2 Haywood's Rep. 
 
 2 9 Cranch, 43. 
 
 The nature of the use was not holden to 
 make any difference. A grant to a par- 
 ish or church, for the purposes which 
 have been mentioned, cannot be distin- 
 guished, in respect to the title it confers, 
 from a grant to a coUege for the promo- 
 tion of piety and learning. To the same 
 purpose may be cited the case of Pawlett 
 V. Clark. The State of Vermont, bj 
 statute, in 1791, granted to the respec- 
 tive towns in that State certain glebe 
 lands lying within those towns for the 
 sole use and support of religious wor- 
 ship. In 1799, an act was passed to 
 repeal the act of 1794; but this coui-t 
 declared, that the act of 1791, "so far 
 as it granted the glebes to the towns, 
 could not afterwards be repealed by the 
 legislature, so as to divest the rights of 
 the towns under the grant. ' ' ^ ^^ 
 
 It will be for the other side to show 
 that the natm-e of the use decides the 
 question whether the legislature has 
 power to resume its grants. It will be 
 for those who maintain such a doc- 
 trine to show the principles and cases 
 upon which it rests. It will be for them 
 also to fix the limits and boundaries of 
 their doctrine, and to show what are 
 and what are not such uses as to give 
 the legislature this power of resumption 
 and revocation. And to furnish an 
 answer to the cases cited, it will be 
 for them further to show that a grant 
 for the use and support of religious 
 worship stands on other ground than 
 a gTant for the promotion of piety and 
 learning. 
 
 I hope enough has been said to show 
 that the trustees possessed vested liber- 
 ties, privileges, and immunities, under 
 this charter; and that such liberties, 
 privileges, and immunities, being once 
 lawfully obtained and vested, are as in- 
 violable as any vested rights of property 
 whatever. Rights to do certain acts, 
 such, for instance, as the visitation and 
 supermtendence of a college and the ap- 
 pointment of its officers, may surely be 
 vested rights, to all legal intents, as 
 completely as the right to possess prop- 
 erty. A late learned judge of this court 
 
 8 9 Cranch. 292. 
 
14 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 has said, " AMien I say that a rigid is 
 vested in a citizen, I mean that he has 
 the power to do certain actions, or to 
 possess certain things, according to the 
 law of the land. "1 
 
 If such be the true nature of the plain- 
 tiffs' interests under this charter, what 
 are the articles in the Xew Hampshire 
 Bill of Rights which these acts infringe? 
 
 They infringe the second article; 
 which say? J that the citizens of the State 
 have a right to hold and possess prop- 
 erty. The plaintiffs had a legal property 
 in this charter; and they had acquired 
 property under it. The acts deprive 
 them of both. They impair and take 
 away the charter ; and they appropriate 
 the property to new uses, against their 
 consent. The plaintiff's cannot now 
 hold the property acquired by them- 
 selves, and which this article says they 
 have a right to hold. 
 
 They infringe the twentieth article. 
 By that article it is declared that, in 
 questions of property, there is a right to 
 trial. The plaintiffs are divested, with- 
 out trial or judgment. 
 
 They infringe the twenty-third article. 
 It is therein declared that no retrospec- 
 tive laws shall be passed. This article 
 bears directly on the case. These acts 
 must be deemed to be retrospective, 
 within the settled construction of that 
 term. "WTiat a retrospective law is, has 
 been decided, on the construction of this 
 very article, in the Circuit Court for the 
 First Circuit. The learned judge of that 
 circuit says : " Every statute which takes 
 away or impairs vested rights, acquired 
 mider existing laws, must be deemed 
 retrospective." ^ That all such laws are 
 retrospective was decided also in the 
 case of Dash v. Van Kleek,^ where a most 
 learned judge quotes this article from 
 tLs constitution of New Hampshire, 
 with manifest approbation, as a plain 
 and clear expression of those fundamen- 
 tal and unalterable principles of justice, 
 whicli must lie at the foundation of 
 
 1 3 Dallas, 394. 
 
 2 SociLty V. Wlieeler, 2 Gul. 103. 
 8 7 .Fohnson's lu'p. 477. 
 
 * Bractoii, Lib. 4. Ibl. 223. 2 Inst. 292. 
 
 every fi-ee and just system of laws. Can 
 any man deny that the plaintiffs had 
 rights, under the charter, which were 
 legally vested, and that by these acts 
 those rights are unpaired? 
 
 " It is a principle in the English law," 
 says Chief Justice Kent, in the case last 
 cited, " as ancient as the law itself, that 
 a statute, even of its omnipotent Parlia- 
 ment, is not to have a retrospective ef- 
 fect. ' Xova constitutio futuris formam 
 imponere debet, et uon pricteritis.' * 
 The maxim in Bracton was taken from 
 the civil law, for we find in that system 
 the same principle, expressed substan- 
 tially m the same words, that the law- 
 giver cannot alter his mind to the 
 prejudice of a vested right. ' Nemo 
 potest mutare concilium suum in alterius 
 injuriam.'o This maxim of Papiniau 
 is general in its terms, but Dr. Taylor ' 
 applies it directly as a restriction upon 
 the lawgiver, and a declaration in the 
 Code leaves no doubt as to the sense of 
 the civil law. ' Leges et constitutiones 
 futuris certum est dare formam negotiis, 
 non ad facta pra?terita revocari, nisi uo- 
 minatim, et de prajterito tempore, et ad- 
 huc peudentibus negotiis cautum sit." ^ 
 This passage, according to the best in- 
 terpretation of the civilians, relates not 
 merely to future suits, but to future, as 
 contradistinguished from past, contracts 
 and vested rights.^ It is indeed ad- 
 mitted that the prince may enact a ret- 
 rospective law, provided it be done ex- 
 pressly ; for the will of the prince under 
 the despotism of the Roman emperors 
 was paramount to every obligation. 
 Great latitude was anciently allowed to 
 legislative expositions of statutes; for 
 the separation of the judicial from tJie 
 legislative power was not then distinctly 
 known or prescribed. The prince was in 
 the habit of interpreting his own laws for 
 I)articular occasions. This was called 
 the ' Interlocutio Principis'; and this, 
 according to Huber's definition, w;i^, 
 ' quando principes inter partes loquun- 
 
 6 Dij;. 50. 17. 75. 
 
 « Kk'inents of tlie Civil Law, ^ 168. 
 
 T Coil. 1. 14. 7. 
 
 8 I'erfzii l'r:i'li-ot. h. L 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGR CASE. 
 
 15 
 
 tur et jus diount.' ^ No correct civilian, 
 and especially no proud admirer of the 
 ancient republic (if any such then ex- 
 isted), could have reflected on this inter- 
 ference with private rights and pending 
 suits without disgust and indignation; 
 and we are rather surprised to find that, 
 under the violent and arbitrary genius 
 of the Roman government, the principle 
 before us should have been acknowl- 
 edged and obeyed to the extent in which 
 we find it. The fact shows that it must 
 be founded in the clearest justice. Our 
 case is happily very different from that 
 of the subjects of Justinian. "SVith us 
 the power of the lawgiver is limited and 
 defined; the judicial is regarded as a dis- 
 tinctj independent power ; private rights 
 are better understood and more exalted 
 in public estimation, as well as secured 
 by provisions dictated by the spirit of 
 freedom, and unknown to the civil law. 
 Our constitutions do not admit the 
 power assumed by the Roman prince, 
 and the principle we are considering is 
 now to be regarded as sacred." 
 
 These acts infringe also the thirty-sev- 
 eath article of the constitution of New 
 Hampshire; which says, that the powers 
 of government shall be kept separate. 
 By these acts, the legislatm-e assmnes to 
 exercise a judicial power. It declares a 
 forfeiture, and resumes franchises, once 
 gi-anted, without trial or hearing. 
 
 If the constitution be not altogether 
 waste-paper, it has restrained the power 
 of the legislature in these particulars. 
 Lf it has any meaning, it is that the leg- 
 islatiire shall pass no act directly and 
 manifestly impairing private property 
 and private privileges. It shall not 
 judge by act. It shall not decide by 
 act. It shall not deprive by act. But 
 it shall leave all these things to be tried 
 and adjudged by the law of the land. 
 
 The fifteenth article has been referred 
 to before. It declares that no one shall 
 be "deprived of his property, immuni- 
 ties, or privileges, but by the judgment 
 of his peers or the law of the land." 
 Notwithstanding the light in which the 
 learned judges in New Hampshire viewed 
 
 1 Prxlect. Juris. Civ., Vol. II. p. 545 
 
 the rights of the plaintiffs xmder the 
 charter, and which has been before ad- 
 verted to, it is found to be admitted in 
 their opinion, tliat those rights are priv- 
 ileges within the meaning of this fif- 
 teenth article of the Bill of Rights. Hav- 
 ing quoted that article, they say: " That 
 the right to manage the affairs of this 
 college is a privilege, within the mean- 
 ing of this clause of the Bill of Rights, 
 is not to be doubted." In my humble 
 opinion, this surrenders the point. To 
 resist the effec* of this admission, how- 
 ever, the learned judges add: " But how 
 a privilege can be protected from the 
 operation of the law of the land by a 
 clause in the constitution, declaring that 
 it shall not be taken away but by the 
 law of the land, is not very easily under- 
 stood. ' ' This answer goes on the ground, 
 that the acts in question are laws of the 
 land, within the meaning of the consti- 
 tution. If they be so, the argument 
 drawn from this article is f uUy answered. 
 If they be not so, it being admitted that 
 the plaintiffs' rights are "privileges," 
 within the meaning of the article, the 
 argument is not answered, and the arti- 
 cle is infringed by the acts. 
 
 Are, then, these acts of the legislature, 
 which affect only particular persons and 
 their particidar privileges, laws of the 
 land ? Let this question be answered by 
 the text of Blackstone. " And first it 
 (i. e. law) is a rule: not a transient, sud- 
 den order from a superior to or concern- 
 ing a particular person ; but somethhig 
 permanent, uniform, and universal. 
 Therefore a particular act of the legis- 
 lature to confiscate the goods of Titius, 
 or to attaint him of high treason, does 
 not enter into the idea of a municipal 
 law ; for the operation of this act is 
 spent upon Titius only, and has no re- 
 lation to the community in general ; it is 
 rather a sentence than a law."* Lord 
 Coke is equally decisive and emphatic. 
 Citing and commenting on the celebrated 
 twenty-ninth chapter of Magna Charta, 
 he says: "No man shall be disseized, 
 &c., unless it be by the lawful judg- 
 ment, that is, verdict of equals, or by 
 
 2 1 Black. Com. 44 
 
16 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 the law of the land, that is (to sj^eak it 
 once for all), by the due course and 
 process of law."^ Have the plaintiffs 
 lost their franchises by " due course and 
 process of law " V On the contraiy, are 
 not these acts "particular acts of the 
 legislature, which have no relation to the 
 community in general, and which are 
 rather sentences than laws" V 
 
 By the law of the land is most clearly 
 intended the general law; a law which 
 hears before it condemns; which pro- 
 ceeds upon inquiry, and renders judg- 
 ment only after trial. The meaning is, 
 that eveiy citizen shall hold his life, lib- 
 erty, property, and immunities under 
 the protection of the general rules which 
 govern society. Every thing which may 
 pass under the form of an enactment is 
 not therefore to be considered the law 
 of the land. If this were so, acts of 
 attainder, bills of pains and penalties, 
 acts of confiscation, acts reversing judg- 
 ments, and acts directly transferring one 
 man's estate to another, legislative judg- 
 ments, decrees, and forfeitures in all 
 possible forms, would be the law of the 
 land. 
 
 Such a strange construction would 
 render constitutional provisions of the 
 highest importance completely inopera- 
 tive and void. It would tend directly to 
 establish the union of all powers in the 
 legislature. There would be no general, 
 permanent law for courts to administer 
 or men to live under. The administra- 
 tion of justice would be an empty form, 
 an idle ceremony. Judges would sit to 
 execute legislative judgments and de- 
 crees; not to declare the law or to ad- 
 minister the justice of the country. " Is 
 that the law of the land," said Mr. 
 Burke, "upon which, if a man go to 
 AVestminster Hall, and ask counsel by 
 what title or tenure he holds his privi- 
 lege or estate according to (he law of t/ie 
 land, he should be told, that the law of 
 the land is not yet known ; that no de- 
 cision or decree has been made in his 
 case ; that when a decree shall be passed, 
 he will then know tvhat the law of the 
 land is f Will this be said to be the law 
 
 1 Coke, 2 Inst. 46. 
 
 of the land, by any lawyer who has a 
 rag of a gown left upon his back, err a 
 wig -ft-ith one tie upon his head ? " 
 
 That the power of electing and ap- 
 pointing the oflBcers of this college is not 
 only a right of the trustees as a corpora- 
 tion, generally, and in the aggregate, 
 but that each individual trustee has also 
 his own individual franchise in such right 
 of election and appointment, is accord- 
 ing to the language of all the authorities. 
 Lord Holt says : " It is agreeable to rea- 
 son and the rules of law, that a franchise 
 should be vested in the corporation ag- 
 gregate, and yet the benefit of it to re- 
 dound to the particular members, and 
 to be enjoyed by them in their private 
 capacity. AVhere the privilege of elec- 
 tion is used by particular persons, i'^ is a 
 particular right, vested in every particular 
 
 man 
 
 "2 
 
 It is also to be considered, that the 
 president and professors of this college 
 have rights to be affected by these acts. 
 Their interest is similar to that of fel- 
 lows in the English colleges; because 
 they derive their living, wholly or in 
 part, from the founders' bounty. The 
 president is one of the trustees or cor- 
 porators. The professors are not neces- 
 sarDy members of the corporation ; but 
 they are appointed by the trustees, are 
 removable only by them, and have fixed 
 salaries payable out of the general funds 
 of the college. Both president and pro- 
 fessors have freeholds in their offices; 
 subject only to be removed by the trus- 
 tees, as their legal visitors, for good 
 cause. All the authorities speak of fel- 
 lowships in colleges as freeholds, not- 
 withstanding the fellows may be liable 
 to be suspended or removed, for misbe- 
 havior, by their constituted visitors. 
 
 Nothing could have been less expected, 
 in this aire, than that there should have 
 been an attempt, by acts of the legis- 
 lature, to take away these college liv- 
 ings, the inadequate but the only support 
 of literary men who have devoted their 
 lives to the instruction of youth. The 
 president and professors were appointed 
 by the twelve trustees. They were ao 
 
 * 2 Lord Rajinond, 862. 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 17 
 
 countable to nobody else, and could be 
 removed by nobody else. They accepted 
 their offices on this tenui'e. Yet the 
 legislature has appointed other persons, 
 with power to remove these officers and 
 to deprive them of their livings ; and 
 those other persons have exercised that 
 power. No description of private prop- 
 erty has been regarded as more sacred 
 than college livings. They are the 
 estates and freeholds of a most deserv- 
 ing class of men ; of scholars who have 
 consented to forego the advantages of 
 professional and public emplojTnents, 
 and to devote themselves to science and 
 literature and the instruction of youth 
 in the quiet retreats of academic life. 
 ■Whether to dispossess and oust them; 
 to deprive them of their office, and to 
 turn them out of then- livings; to do 
 this, not by the power of theu- legal 
 visitors or governors, but by acts of the 
 legislatuie, and to do it without forfeit- 
 ui'e and without fault ; whether all this 
 be not in the highest degree an inde- 
 fensible and arbitrary proceeding, is a 
 question of which there would seem to 
 be but one side fit for a lawyer or a 
 scholar to espouse. 
 
 Of all the attempts of James the Sec- 
 ond to overtm-n the law, and the rights 
 of his subjects, none was esteemed more 
 arbitrary or tyi-annical than his attack 
 on Magdalen College, Oxford; and yet 
 that attempt was nothing but to put out 
 one president and put in another. The 
 president of that college, according to 
 the charter and statutes, is to be chosen 
 by the fellows, who are the corporators. 
 There being a vacancy, the king chose 
 to take the appointment out of the hands 
 of the fellows, the legal electors of a 
 president, into his own hands. He there- 
 fore sent down his mandate, command- 
 ing the fellows to admit for president a 
 person of his nomination; and, inas- 
 much as this was directly against the 
 charter and constitution of the college, 
 he was pleased to add a non obstante 
 clause of siifficiently comprehensive im- 
 port. The fellows were commanded to 
 admit the person mentioned in the man- 
 date, "any statute, custom, or constitu- 
 tion to tlie contrary- notwithstanding, 
 
 wherewith we are graciously pleased to 
 dispense, in this behaK." The fellows 
 refused obedience to this mandate, and 
 Dr. Hough, a man of independence and 
 character, was chosen president by the 
 fellows, according to the charter and 
 statutes. The king then assumed the 
 power, in virtue of his prerogative, to 
 send down certain commissioners to turu 
 him out; which was done accordingly; 
 and Parker, a creature suited to the 
 times, put in his place. Because the 
 president, who was rightfully and legally 
 elected, ivould not deliver the keys, the 
 doors were broken open. "The nation 
 as well as the university," says Bishop 
 Burnet, 1 "looked on all these proceed- 
 ings with just indignation. It was 
 thought an open piece of robbery and 
 burglary when men, authorized by no 
 legal commission, came and forcibly 
 tm'ned men out of their possession and 
 freehold." Mr. Hume, although a man 
 of different temper, and of other senti- 
 ments, in some respects, than Dr. Bur- 
 net, speaks of this arbitrary- attempt of 
 prerogative in terms not less decisive. 
 "The president, and all the fellows," 
 says he, "except two, who complied, 
 were expelled the college, and Parker 
 was put in possession of the office. This 
 act of violence, of all those which were 
 committed during the reign of James, ia 
 perhaps the most illegal and arbitrary. 
 When the dispensing power was the 
 most strenuously insisted on by court 
 huvyers, it had still been allowed that 
 the statutes which regard private prop- 
 erty could not legally be infringed by 
 that prerogative. Yet, in this instance, 
 it appeared that even these were not now 
 secm-e from invasion. The privileges of 
 a college are attacked ; men are illegally 
 dispossessed of their property for adher- 
 ing to their duty, to their oaths, and to 
 their religion." 
 
 This measure King James lived to 
 repent, after repentance was too late 
 "N^Tien the charter of London was re- 
 stored, and other measm-es of violence 
 were retracted, to avert the impending 
 revolution, the expelled president and 
 
 1 Historj' of his own Times, Vol. III. o. 
 
 119. 
 
1« 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 fellows of Magdalen College were per- 
 mitted to resume their rights. It is 
 evident that this was regarded as an 
 arbitrary interference with private prop- 
 ertJ^ Yet private property was no oth- 
 erwise attacked than as a person was 
 appointed to administer and enjoy the 
 revenues of a college in a manner and 
 by persons not authorized by the consti- 
 tution of the college. A majority of the 
 members of the corporation would not 
 comply with the king's wishes. A 
 minority would. The object was there- 
 fore to make this minority a majority. 
 To this end the king's commissioners 
 were directed to interfere in the case, 
 and they united with the two complying 
 fellows, and expelled the rest; and thus 
 effected a change in the government of 
 the college. The language in which 
 Mr. Hume and all other writers speak 
 of this abortive attempt of oppression, 
 shows that colleges were esteemed to be, 
 as they truly are, private corporations, 
 and the property and privileges which 
 belong to them private property and 
 private privileges. Court lawyers were 
 found to justify the king in dispensing 
 with the laws; that is, in assuming and 
 exercising a legislative authority. But 
 no la\n-er, not even a court lawyer, in 
 the reign of King James the Second, as 
 far as appears, was found to say that, 
 even by this high authority, he could 
 infringe the franchises of the fellows 
 of a college, and take away their liv- 
 ings. j\Ir. Hume gives the reason; it 
 is, that such franchises were regarded, 
 in a most emphatic sense, a.< private prop- 
 erty.'^ 
 
 If it could be made to appear that the 
 trustees and the president and profes- 
 sors held their oliices and franchises 
 during the pleasure of the legislature, 
 and tliat tiie property holden belonged 
 to the State, then indeed the legislature 
 have done no more than they had a 
 right to do. But this is not so. The 
 cliarter is a charter of privileges and 
 itmnuiiities; and these are holden by 
 the trustees expressly against the State 
 for ever. 
 
 1 Sco a full account of this case in State 
 rri«ls. 4th ed.. Vol. IV. p. 2U2. 
 
 It is admitted that the State, by its 
 courts of law, can enforce the ^iU of the 
 donor, and compel a faitlrful execution 
 of the trust. The plaintiffs claim no 
 exemption from legal responsibility. 
 They hold themselves at all times an- 
 swerable to the law of the land, for their 
 conduct in the trust committed to them. 
 They ask only to hold the proi->erty of 
 which they are owners, and the fran- 
 chises which belong to them, until they 
 shall be foimd, by due course aad pro- 
 cess of law, to have forfeited them. 
 
 It can make no difference whether the 
 legislature exercise the power it has as- 
 sumed by removing the trustees and the 
 president and professors, du'ectly and 
 by name, or by appointing others to 
 expel them. The principle is the same, 
 and in point of fact the result has been 
 the same. If the entire franchise can- 
 not be taken away, neither can it be es- 
 sentially impaired. If the trustees are 
 legal owners of the propeiiy, they are 
 sole o'wners. If they are visitors, they 
 are sole visitors. Xo one will be found 
 to say, that, if the legislature may do 
 what it has done, it may not do any 
 tiling and every thing which it may 
 choose to do, relative to the property of 
 the corporation, and the privileges of its 
 members and officers. 
 
 If the view which has been taken of 
 this question be at all correct, this was 
 an eleemosynary corporation, a private 
 charity. The property was private 
 property. The trustees were visitors, 
 and the right to hold the charter, ad- 
 minister tlie funds, and visit and govern 
 the college, was a franchise and privi- 
 lege, solemnly granted to them. The 
 use being public in no way diminishes 
 their legal estate in the projierty, or 
 their title to the franchise. There is no 
 principle, nor any case, which declares 
 that a gift to such a corporation is a gift 
 to the public. The acts in question 
 violate property. They take away 
 privileges, immunities, and franchises. 
 They deny to the trustees the protec- 
 tion of the law ; and they ai-e retrospec- 
 tive in their operation In all which 
 respects they are against tlie constitu- 
 tion of New Hampshire. 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 19 
 
 The plaintiffs contend, in the second 
 place, that the acts in question are re- 
 pugnant to the tenth section of the first 
 articlt of the Constitution of the United 
 States. The material words of that sec- 
 tion are: "No State shall pass any 
 bill of attainder, ex jiost facto law, or 
 law unpairing the obligation of con- 
 tracts." 
 
 The ol ject of these most important 
 provisions in the national constitution 
 has often been discussed, both here and 
 elsewhere. It is exhibited with great 
 clearness and force by one of the dis- 
 tinguished persons who framed that in- 
 strmnent. " Bills of attainder, ex post 
 facto laws, and laws impairing the obli- 
 gation of contracts, are contrary to the 
 first principles of the social compact, 
 and to every principle of sound legisla- 
 tion. The two former are expressly 
 prohibited by the declarations prefixed 
 to some of the State constitutions, and 
 all of them are prohibited by the spirit 
 and scope of these fundamental charters. 
 Our own experience has taught us, 
 nevertheless, that additional fences 
 against these dangers ought not to be 
 omitted. Very properly, therefore, have 
 the convention added this constitutional 
 bulwark, m favor of personal security 
 and private rights ; and I am much de- 
 ceived, if they have not, in so doing, as 
 faithfully consulted the genuine senti- 
 ments as the midoubted interests of 
 their constituents. The sober people 
 of America are weary of the fluctuating 
 policy which has directed the public 
 councils. They have seen with regret, 
 and with indignation, that sudden 
 changes, and legislative interferences 
 in cases affecting personal rights, be- 
 come jobs in the hands of enterprising 
 and influential speculators, and snares 
 to the more industrious and less in- 
 formed part of the community. They 
 have seen, too, that one legislative in- 
 terference is but the link of a long chain 
 of repetitions; every subsequent inter- 
 ference bemg naturally produced by the 
 effects of the preceding." ^ 
 
 It has ah-eady been decided in this 
 
 1 The Federalist, No. 44, by Mr. Madison. 
 
 court, that a (jrant is a contract, wthm 
 the meaning of this provision; and that 
 a grant by a State is also a contract, aa 
 much as the grant of an individual. In 
 the case of Fletcher v. Peck- this court 
 says : " A contract is a compact between 
 two or more parties, and is either exec- 
 utory or executed. An executory con- 
 tract is one in which a party binds him- 
 self to do, or not to do, a particular 
 thing; such was the law under which 
 the conveyance was made by the gov- 
 ernment. A contract executed is one 
 in which the object of contract is per- 
 formed; and this, says Blackstone, dif- 
 fers in nothing from a grant. The 
 contract between Georgia and the pur- 
 chasers was executed by the grant. A 
 contract executed, as well as one which 
 is executory, contains obligations bmd- 
 ing on the parties. A grant, in its own 
 nature, amounts to an extinguishment 
 of the right of the grantor, and implies 
 a contract not to reassert that right. 
 If, under a fair construction of the 
 Constitution, grants are comprehended 
 under the term contracts, is a grant 
 from the State excluded from the opera- 
 tion of the provision? Is the clause to 
 be considered as inhibiting the State 
 from impairing the obligation of con- 
 tracts between two individuals, but as 
 excluding from that inhibition contracts 
 made with itself? The words them- 
 selves contain no such distinction. 
 They are general, and are applicable 
 to contracts of every description. If 
 contracts made with the State are to be 
 exempted from their operation, the ex- 
 ception must arise from the character of 
 the contracting party, not from the 
 words which are employed. AVhatever 
 respect might have been felt for the 
 State sovereignties, it is not to be dis- 
 guised that the fraraers of the Constitu- 
 tion viewed with some apprehension the 
 violent acts which might grow out of 
 the feelings of the moment; and that 
 the people of the United States, in 
 adopting that in.strument, have mani- 
 fested a determination to shield them- 
 selves and their property from the 
 
 2 6 Cranch, 87. 
 
20 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 effects of those sudden and strong pas- 
 sions to -SN-hich men are exposed. The 
 restrictions on tlie legislative power of 
 the States are obviously founded in this 
 sentiment; and the Constitution of the 
 United States contains what may be 
 deemed a bill of rights for the people of 
 each State." 
 
 It has also been decided, that a grant 
 by a State before the Kevolution is as 
 much to be protected as a grant since. ^ 
 But the case of Terrell v. Taylor, before 
 cited, is of all others most pertinent to 
 the present argument. Indeed, the 
 judgment of the court in that case 
 seems to leave little to be argued or 
 decided in this. "A private corpora- 
 tion," say the court, "created by the 
 legislature, may lose its franchises by a 
 viisuaer ox a nonuser ol them; and they 
 may be resumed by the government 
 under a judicial judgment upon a quo 
 warranlo to ascertain and enforce the 
 forfeiture. This is the common law of 
 the land, and is a tacit condition an- 
 nexed to the creation of every such cor- 
 poration. Upon a change of govern- 
 ment, too, it may be admitted, that 
 such exclusive privileges attached to a 
 private corporation as are inconsistent 
 Jrith the new government may be abol- 
 ished. In respect, also, to public cor- 
 porations which exist only for public 
 purposes, such as counties, towns, cities, 
 and so forth, the legislature may, under 
 proper limitations, have a right to 
 change, modify, enlarge, or restrain 
 them, securing, however, the property 
 for the uses of those for whom and at 
 whose expense it was originally pur- 
 chased. But that the legislatm-e can 
 repeal statutes creating private corpora- 
 tions, or confirming to them property 
 already acquired under the faith of pre- 
 vious laws, and by such repeal can vest 
 the property of such corporations ex- 
 clusively in the State, or dispose of the 
 same to such purposes as they please, 
 without the consent or default of the 
 corporators, we are not prejiared to ad- 
 mit; and we think ourselves standing 
 
 1 New Jersey v. Wilsim, 7 Crancli, 1G4. 
 
 upon the principles of natural justice, 
 ujx)n the fundamental laws of every free 
 government, upon the spirit and lettei 
 of the Constitution of the United States, 
 and upon the decisions of most respect- 
 able judicial tribunals, in resisting 
 such a doctrine." 
 
 This court, then, does not admit the 
 doctrine, that a legislature can repeal 
 statutes creating private corporations. 
 If it cannot repeal them altogether, of 
 course it cannot repeal any part of thorn, 
 or impair them, or essentially alter them, 
 without the consent of the corporators. 
 If, therefore, it has been shown that 
 this college is to be legarded as a private 
 charity, this case is embraced within the 
 very terms of that decision. A grant of 
 corporate powers and privileges is as 
 much a contract as a grant of land. 
 What proves aU charters of this sort to 
 be contracts is, that they must be ac- 
 cepted to give them force and effect. If 
 they are not accepted, they are void. 
 And in the case of an existing corpora- 
 tion, if a new charter is given it, it may 
 even accept part and reject the rest. In 
 Rex V. Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge,'^ 
 Lord oVIansfield says: " There is a vast 
 deal of difference between a new charter 
 gianted to a new corporation, (who 
 must take it as it is given.) and a new 
 charter given to a corporation already in 
 being, and acting either under a former 
 charter or under prescriptive usage. 
 The latter, a corporation already exist- 
 ing, are not obliged to accept the new 
 charter in tola, and to receive either all 
 or none of it; they may act partly under 
 it, and partly under their old charter or 
 prescription. The validity of these new 
 charters must tmii upon the acceptance 
 of them." In the same case Mr. Justice 
 Wilmot says: "It is the concui-renoe 
 and acceptance of the university that 
 gives the force to the charter of the 
 crown." In the Ki>ic/\. Pasniore,^ Lord 
 Kenyou obsers'es: " Some things are 
 clear : when a corporation exists capable 
 of discliarging its functions, the crown 
 cannot obtrude another charter upon 
 
 2 3 Burr. 1G5G. 
 
 8 3 Term Kep. 240 
 
THE DART.MOUTII COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 21 
 
 them ; they may either accept or re- 
 ject it."i 
 
 In all cases relative to cliarters, the 
 acceptance of them is uniformly alleged 
 in the pleadings. This shows the gen- 
 eral understanding of the law, that they 
 are gi-ants or contracts ; and that parties 
 «,re necessary to give them force and va- 
 idity. In King v. Dr. Astew,^ it is 
 «aid: " The crown cannot oblige a man 
 to be a corporator, without his consent ; 
 he shall not be subject to the inconven- 
 iences of it, -without accepting it and 
 assenting to it." These terms, " accept- 
 ance " and "assent," are the very lan- 
 guage of contract. In Ellis v. Marshall,^ 
 it was expressly adjudged that the nam- 
 ing of the defendant among others, in 
 an act of incorporation, did not of itself 
 make him a corporator; and that his as- 
 sent was necessary to that end. The 
 court speak of the act of incorporation 
 as a gi-ant, and observe: " That a man 
 may refuse a grant, whether from the 
 government or an individual, seems to 
 be a principle too clear to require the 
 support of authorities." But Justice 
 Buller, in King v. Pasmore, fui'uishes, 
 if possible, a still more dii'ect and ex- 
 plicit authority. Speaking of a corpo- 
 ration for government, he says: " I do 
 not know how to reason on this point 
 better than in the manner m-ged by one 
 of the relator's counsel ; who considered 
 the grant of incorporation to be a com- 
 pact between the crown and a certain 
 number of the subjects, the latter of 
 whom undertake, in consideration of 
 the privileges which are bestowed, to 
 exert themselves for the good govern- 
 ment of the place." This language ap- 
 plies with peculiar propriety and force 
 to the case before the court. It was 
 in consequence of the ' ' privileges be- 
 stowed,*' that Dr. Wheelock and his as- 
 sociates undertook to exert themselves 
 for the insti'uction and education of 
 youth m this college ; and it was on the 
 eame consideration that the founder en- 
 dowed it with his property. 
 
 1 See also 3 Kyd on Corp. 05. 
 8 4 Burr. 2200' 
 « 2 Mass. Kep. 2G9. 
 
 And because charters of incorporation 
 are of the nature of contracts, they can- 
 not be altered or varied but by con- 
 sent of the original parties. If a charter 
 be granted bj' the king, it may be altered 
 by a new charter granted by the king, 
 and accepted by the corporators. But 
 if the first charter be granted by Parlia- 
 ment, the consent of Parliament must be 
 obtained to any alteration. In King v. 
 Miller,* Lord Kenyon says: " Where a 
 corporation takes its rise from the king's 
 charter, the king by granting, and the 
 corporation by accepting another charter, 
 may alter it, because it is done with the 
 consent of all the parties who are com 
 petent to consent to the alteration." ^ 
 
 There are, in this case, all the essen- 
 tial constituent parts of a contract. 
 There is something to be contracted 
 about, there are parties, and there are 
 plain terms in which the agi'eement of 
 the parties on the subject of the contract 
 is expressed. There are mutual consid- 
 erations and inducements. The charter 
 recites, that the fomider, on his part, 
 has agi"eed to establish his seminary iu 
 New Hampshire, and to enlarge it be- 
 yond its original design, among other 
 things, for the benefit of that Province; 
 and thereupon a charter is given to him 
 and his associates, designated by him- 
 self, promising and assuring to them, 
 under the plighted faith of the State, 
 the right of governing the college and 
 administering its concerns in the manner 
 provided in the charter. There is a 
 complete and perfect grant to them of 
 all the power of superintendence, visita- 
 tion, and government. Is not this a 
 contract? If lands or money had been 
 granted to him and his associates, for 
 the same purposes, such grant could not 
 be rescinded. And is there any differ- 
 ence, in legal contemplation, between a 
 grant of corporate franchises and a grant 
 of tangible property? No such differ- 
 ence is recognized in any decided case, 
 nor does it exist in the common appre- 
 hension of mankind. 
 
 * 6 Term Rep. 277. 
 
 6 See also Ex parte Bolton School, 2 Brown'f 
 Ch. Rep. 662. 
 
90 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE- 
 
 It is therefore contended, that this 
 case tails within the true meaning of this 
 provision of the Constitution, as ex- 
 pounded in the decisions of this court ; 
 that the charter of 1769 is a contract, a 
 stipulation or agreement, mutual in its 
 considerations, express and formal in its 
 terms, and of a most binding and sol- 
 emn nature. That the acts in question 
 impair this contract, has already been 
 sufficiently shown. They repeal and ab- 
 rogate its most essential parts. 
 
 A single observation may not be im- 
 proper on the opinion of the court of 
 New Hampshire, which has been pub- 
 lished. The learned judges who deliv- 
 ered that opinion have viewed this 
 question in a very different light from 
 that in which the plaintiffs have endeav- 
 ored to exhibit it. After some general 
 remarks, they assume that this college 
 is a public corporation ; and on this basis 
 their judgment rests. Whether all col- 
 leges are not regarded as private and 
 eleemnsynaiy corporations, by all law 
 writers and all judicial decisions ; wheth- 
 er this college was not foimded by Dr. 
 Wheelock ; whether the charter was not 
 granted at his request, the better to ex- 
 ecute a trust, which he had already cre- 
 ated ; whether he and his associates did 
 not become visitors, by the charter; and 
 whether Dartmouth College be not, 
 therefore, in the strictest sense, a pri- 
 vate charity, are questions which the 
 learned judges do not appear to have 
 discussed. 
 
 It is admitted in that opinion, that, if 
 it be a private corporation, its rights 
 stand on the same ground as those of an 
 individual. The great question, there- 
 fore, to be decided is. To which class of 
 corporations do colleges thus founded 
 belong? And the plaintiffs have en- 
 deavored to satisfy the coui't, that, ac- 
 cording to the well-settled principles and 
 uniform decisions of law, they are pri- 
 vate, eleemosynary corporations. 
 
 Much has heretofore been said on the 
 necessity of admitting such a power in 
 the legislature as has been assumed in 
 this case. Many cases of possible evil 
 have been imagined, which might other- 
 wise be withuut remedy. Abuses, it is 
 
 contended, might arise in the mnjiage^ 
 ment of such institutions, which the or- 
 dinary courts of law would be unable to 
 correct. But this is only anothi.'r in- 
 stance of that habit of supposing ex- 
 treme cases, and then of reasoning from 
 them, which is the constant refuge of 
 those who are obliged to defend a cause, 
 which, upon its merits, is indefensible. 
 It would be sufficient to say in answer, 
 that it is not pretended that there was 
 here any such case of necessity. But a 
 still more satisfactory answer is, that 
 the apprehension of danger is ground- 
 less, and therefore the whole argument 
 fails. Experience has aot taught us that 
 there is danger of great evils or of gi'eat 
 inconvenience from this soui'ce. Hith- 
 erto, neither in our own country nor 
 elsewhere have such cases of necessity 
 occurred. The judicial establishments of 
 the State are presvuned to be competent 
 to prevent abuses and violations of trust, 
 in cases of this kind, as well as in aU 
 others. If they be not, they are imper- 
 fect, and their amendment would be a 
 most proper subject for legislative wis- 
 dom. Under the government and pro- 
 tection of the general laws of the land, 
 these institutions have always been 
 fomid safe, as well as useful. They go 
 on, with the progress of society, accom- 
 modating themselves easily, without sud- 
 den change or violence, to the alterations 
 which take place in its condition, and 
 in the knowledge, the habits, and pur- 
 suits of men. The English colleges were 
 founded in Catholic ages. Their re- 
 ligion was reformed Avith the general 
 reformation of the nation ; and they are 
 suited perfectly weU to the pm-pose of 
 educating the Protestant youth of mod- 
 ern times. Dartmouth College was es 
 tablished under a charter granted b\ the. 
 Provincial government; but a better 
 constitution for a college, or one more 
 adapted to the condition of things under 
 the present government, in all u.aterial 
 respects, could not now be framed. 
 Nothing in it was found to need altera- 
 tion at the Revolution. The wise men 
 of that day saw in it one of the best 
 hopes of future times, and commended 
 it as it was, with parental care, to the 
 
THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 23 
 
 protection and guardianship of the gov- 
 ernment of the State. A charter of 
 more liberal sentiments, of wiser pro- 
 visions, drawn with more care, or in a 
 better spirit, could not be expected at 
 any time or from amy som-ce. The col- 
 lege needed no change in its organisa- 
 tion or government. That which it did 
 need was the kindness, the patronage, 
 the bounty of the legislatui-e; not a 
 mock ele7ation to the character of a uni- 
 versity, without the solid benefit of a 
 shilling's donation to sustain the charac- 
 ter; not the swelling and empty author- 
 itv of establishinar institutes and other 
 colleges. This unsubstantial pageantry 
 would seem to have been in derision 
 of the scanty endowment and limited 
 means of an unobtrusive, but useful 
 and (jrowinsj seminary. Least of all 
 was there a necessity, or pretence of iie- 
 cessity, to infringe its legal rights, vio- 
 late its franchises and privileges, and 
 pour upon it these overwhelming streams 
 of litigation. 
 
 But this argmnent from necessity 
 woidd equally apply in aU other cases. 
 If it be well fomided, it would prove, 
 that, whenever any inconvenience or evil 
 is experienced fi-ora the restrictions im- 
 posed on the legislatm-e by the Con- 
 stitution, these restrictions ought to be 
 disregarded. It is enough to say, that 
 the people have thought otherwise. 
 They have, most wisely, chosen to take 
 the risk of occasional inconvenience 
 from the want of power, in order that 
 there might be a settled limit to its 
 exercise, and a permanent seciurity 
 against its abuse. They have imposed 
 prohibitions and restraints; and they 
 have not rendered these altogether vain 
 and nugatory by conferring the power of 
 dispensation. If inconvenience should 
 arise which the legislature cannot rem- 
 edy imder the power conferred upon it, it 
 Ls not answerable for such inconvenience. 
 That which it cannot do withm the 
 limits prescribed to it, it cannot do at 
 aU. No legislature in this countiy is 
 able, and may the tune never come when 
 it shall be able, to apply to itself the 
 memorable expression of a Roman pon- 
 tiff- " Licet hoc tie Jure non possumus. 
 
 volumus tamen de plenitudine poles- 
 tatis." 
 
 The case before the court is not of 
 ordinary importance, nor of evei-y-day 
 occurrence. It affects not this college 
 only, but every college, and all the 
 literary institutions of the country. 
 They have flourished hitherto, and have 
 become in a high degree respectable and 
 useful to the community. They have 
 all a common principle of existence, the 
 inviolability of their charters. It will 
 be a dangerous, a most dangerous ex- 
 periment, to hold these institutions sub- 
 ject to the rise and fall of popular 
 parties, and the fluctuations of political 
 opinions. If the franchise may be at 
 any time taken away, or impaired, the 
 property also may be taken away, or its 
 use perverted. Benefactors will have no 
 certainty of effecting the object of their 
 bounty; and learned men wiU be de- 
 terred from devoting themselves to the 
 service of such institutions, from the pre- 
 carious title of their offices. Collegea 
 and halls will be deserted by all better 
 spirits, and become a theatre for the 
 contentions of politics. Party and fac- 
 tion will be cherished in the places con- 
 secrated to piety and learning. These 
 consequences are neither I'emote nor pos- 
 sible only. They are certain and im- 
 mediate. 
 
 "When the court in Xorth Carolina 
 declared the law of the State, which re- 
 pealed a grant to its university, uncon- 
 stitutional and void, the legislatui-e had 
 the candor and the wisdom to repeal the 
 law. This example, so honorable to the 
 State which exhibited it, is most fit to 
 be followed on this occasion. And there 
 is good reason to hope that a State, 
 which has hitherto been so much dis- 
 tinguished for temperate counsels, cau- 
 tious legislation, and regard to law, will 
 not fail to adopt a course which will 
 accord with her highest and best inter- 
 ests, and in no small degree elevate her 
 reputation. 
 
 It was for many and obvious reasons 
 most anxiousl}' desired that tlie question 
 of the power of the legislatiu-e over this 
 charter should have been finally decided 
 in the State court. An earnest hope 
 
24 
 
 THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 
 
 ^as entertained that the judges of the 
 court might have viewed the case in a 
 light favorable to the riglits of the trus- 
 tees. That hope has failed. It is here 
 that those rights are now to be main- 
 tained, or they are prostrated for ever. 
 "Omnia aha perfugia bononim, aub- 
 
 sidia, consilia, auxilia, jura ceciderunt. 
 Quem enim alium appeUem? quem ob- 
 tester? quem iinplorem? Nisi hoc loco, 
 nisi apud vos, nisi per vos, judices, salu- 
 tem nostram, qufe spe exigua extremaque 
 pendet, tenuerimus; nihil est praiterea 
 quo confugere possimiis " 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 A. DISCOURSE DELIVERED AT PLYMOUTH, ON THE 22d OF DECEMBER, 1830 
 
 [The first public anniversary celebration 
 of the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth 
 took place under the auspices of the " Old 
 Colony Club," of whoso formation an ac- 
 count may be found in the interesting little 
 work of William S. Russell, Esq., entitled 
 " Guide to Plymouth and Recollections of 
 the Pilgrims." 
 
 This club was formed for general pur- 
 poses of social intercourse, in 1769 ; but its 
 members detcrmintil, by a vote passed on 
 Monday, the 18th of December, of that year, 
 " to keep " Friday, the 22d, in commemora- 
 tion of tlie landing of the fatliers. A par- 
 ticular account of the simple festivities of 
 tills first public celebration of the landing 
 of tlie Pilgrims will be found at page 220 
 of Mr. Russell's work. 
 
 The following year, the anniversary was 
 celebrated much in the same manner as in 
 1769, with the addition of a short address, 
 pronounced " with modest and decent firm- 
 ness, by a member of the club, Edward 
 Winslow, Jr., Esq.," being the first address 
 ever delivered on this occasion. 
 
 In 1771, it was suggested by Rev. Chan- 
 dler Robbins, pastor of the First Church at 
 Plymouth, in a letter addressed to the club, 
 " whetlier it would not be agreeable, for the 
 entertaimnent and instruction of the rising 
 generation on these anniversaries, to have a 
 sermon in public, some part of the day, pe- 
 culiarly adapted to the occasion." This 
 recommendation prevailed, and an appro- 
 priate discourse was delivered the following 
 year by the Rev. Dr. Robbins. 
 
 In 1773 the Old Colony Club was dis- 
 solved, in consequence of the conflicting 
 opinions of its members on the great polit- 
 ical questions then agitated. Notwithstaiui- 
 ing tills event, the anniversary celebrations 
 of the 22d of December continued without 
 interruption till 1780, when they were sus- 
 pended. After an interval of fourteen years, 
 a public discourse was again delivered by 
 the Rev. Dr. Robbins. Private celebrations 
 took place the four following years, and 
 from that time till the year 1819, with one 
 or two exceptions, the day was annually 
 conunemorated, and public addresses were 
 
 delivered by distinguished clergymen and 
 
 laymen of Massachusetts. 
 
 In 1820 the "Pilgrim Society" was 
 formed by the citizens of Plymouth and 
 the descendants of the Pilgrims in other 
 places, desirous of uniting " to commem 
 orate the landing, and to honor the memory 
 of the intrepid men who first set foot on 
 Plymouth rock." The foundation of this 
 society gave a new impulse to the anniver- 
 sary celebrations of this great event. The 
 Hon. Daniel Webster was requested to de- 
 liver the public address on the 22d of De- 
 cember of that year, and the following 
 discourse was pronounced by him on the 
 ever-memorable occasion. Great public ex 
 pectation was awakened by the fame of the 
 orator; an immense concourse assembled at 
 Plymouth to unite in the celebration ; and 
 it may be safely anticipated, that some por- 
 tion of the powerful effect of the following 
 address on the minds of those who were so 
 fortunate as to hear it, will be perpetuated 
 by the press to the latest posterity. 
 
 From 1820 to the present day, with occa- 
 sional interruptions, the 22d of December 
 has been celebrated by the Pilgrim Society- 
 A list of all those by whom anniversary 
 discourses have been delivered since the 
 first organization of the Old Colony Club, 
 in 1761), may be found in Mr. Russell's 
 work. 
 
 Nor has the notice of the day been con- 
 fined to New England. Public celebrations 
 of the landing of the Pilgrims have been 
 frequent in other parts of the country, par- 
 ticularly in New York. The New England 
 Society of that city has rarely permitted 
 the day to pass without appropriate honois. 
 Similar societies have been formed at Phil- 
 adelphia, Charleston, S. C, and Cincinnati, 
 and the day has been publicly commem- 
 orated in several other parts of the coun- 
 try.] 
 
 Let us rejoice that we behold this 
 day. Let us be thankful that we have 
 lived to see the bright and happy break- 
 ing of the auspicious morn, which com- 
 
26 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 mences the third century of the history 
 of New England. Auspicious, indeed, 
 — bringing a happiness beyond the com- 
 inoQ allotment of Providence to men, — 
 full of present joy, and gilding with 
 bright beams the prospect of futui-ity, is 
 the dawn that awakens us to the com- 
 memoration of the lauding of the Pil- 
 grims. 
 
 Living at an epoch which naturally 
 marks the progress of the history of our 
 native land, we have come hither to cel- 
 ebrate the great event with which that 
 history, commenced. For ever honored 
 be this, the place of our fathers' refuge! 
 For ever remembered the day which saw 
 them, weary and distressed, broken in 
 every thing but spirit, poor in all but 
 faith and courage, at last secure from 
 the dangers of wintry seas, and impress- 
 ing this shore with the first footsteps of 
 civilized man ! 
 
 It is a noble faculty of our nature 
 ■which enables us to connect our thoughts, 
 our .sympathies, and our happiness with 
 what is distant in place or time; and, 
 looking before and after, to hold com- 
 munion at once with our ancestors and 
 our posterity. Human and mortal al- 
 though we are, we are nevertheless not 
 mere insulated beings, without relation 
 to the past or the future. Xeither the 
 point of time, nor the spot of earth, in 
 which we physically live, bounds our ra- 
 tional and intellectual enjoyments. AVe 
 live in the past by a knowledge of its 
 history; and in the future, by hope and 
 anticipation. By ascending to an asso- 
 ciation with our ancestors; b}' contem- 
 plating their example and studying their 
 character ; by partaking their sentiments, 
 and imbibing their spirit; by accompa- 
 nying them in tlieir toils, by sympathiz- 
 ing in their sufferings, and rejoicing in 
 their successes and their triumphs; we 
 seem to belong to their age, and to min- 
 gle our own existence with theirs. We 
 become their contemporaries, live the 
 lives which they lived, endure what they 
 endured, and partake in the rewards 
 which they enjoyed. And in like man- 
 ner, by running along the line of future 
 time, by contt-niplating the probable for- 
 tunes of those who are coming after us, 
 
 by attempting something which may 
 promote their happiness, and leave some 
 not dishonorable memorial of ourselves 
 for their regard, when we shall sleep with 
 the fathers, we protract our own earthly 
 being, and seem to crowd whatever is 
 future, as weU as all that is past, into 
 the narrow compass of ovu- earthly exist- 
 ence. As it is not a vain and false, but 
 an exalted and religious imagination, 
 which leads us to raise our thoughts 
 from the orb, which, amidst this uni- 
 verse of worlds, the Creator has given 
 us to inhabit, and to send them with 
 something of the feeling which nature 
 prompts, and teaches to be proper among 
 children of the same Eternal Parent, to 
 the contemplation of the myriads of fel- 
 low-beings with which his goodness has 
 peopled the infinite of space; so neither 
 is it false or vain to consider ourselves 
 as interested and connected with our 
 whole race, through all time; allied to 
 our ancestors; allied to our posterity; 
 closely compacted on all sides with oth- 
 ers; ourselves being but links in the 
 great chain of being, which begins with 
 the origiu of our race, runs onward 
 through its successive generations, bind- 
 ing together the past, the present, and 
 the future, and terminating at last, with 
 the consummation of all things earthly, 
 at the throne of God. 
 
 There may be, and there often is, in- 
 deed, a regard for ancesti-y, which nour- 
 ishes only a weak pride; as there is also 
 a care for posterity, which only disguises 
 an habitual avarice, or hides the work- 
 ings of a low and grovelling vanity. But 
 there is also a moral and philosophical 
 respect for our ancestors, which elevates 
 the character and improves the lieart. 
 Xext to the sense of religious duty and 
 moral feeling, I hardly know what should 
 bear with stronger obligation on a lib- 
 eral and enlightened mind, than a con- 
 sciousness of alliance with excellence 
 which is departed ; and a consciousness, 
 too, that in its acts and conduct, and 
 even in its sentiments and thoughts, it 
 may be actively operating on the happi- 
 ness of those who come after it. Poetry 
 is found to have few stronger concejv 
 tions, by which it would affect or over- 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 27 
 
 whelm the raiiid, than those in which it 
 presents the moving and speaking image 
 of the departed dead to tlie senses of the 
 living. Tliis belongs to poetry, only be- 
 cause it is congenial to our nature. 
 Poetry is, in this respect, but the hand- 
 maid of true philosophy and morality; it 
 deal., with us as human beings, naturally 
 reverencing those whose visible connec- 
 tion with this state of existence is sev- 
 ered, and who may yet exercise we 
 know not what sympathy with ourselves ; 
 and when it carries us forward, also, 
 and shows us the long continued result 
 of all the good we do, in the prosperity 
 of those wlio follow us, till it bears us 
 from ourselves, and absorbs us in an in- 
 tense interest for what shall happen to 
 the generations after us, it .speaks only 
 in the language of our nature, and af- 
 fects us with sentiments which belong to 
 us as human beings. 
 
 Standing in this relation to our ances- 
 tors and our posterity, we are assembled 
 on this memorable spot, to perform the 
 duties which that relation and the pres- 
 ent occasion impose upon us. AVe have 
 come to this Rock, to record here our 
 homage for our Pilgrim Fathers; our 
 sympathy in their suffeiings; our gi-ati- 
 tude for their labors; our admiration of 
 their Aartues; our veneration for their 
 piety; and our attachment to those prin- 
 ciples of civil and religious liberty, which 
 they encountered the dangers of the 
 ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence 
 of savages, disease, exile, and famine, to 
 enjoy and to "^^tablish. And we would 
 leave here, also, foj- the generations 
 which are rising up vapidly to fill our 
 places, some proof that we have endeav- 
 ored to transmit the great inheritance 
 unimi)aired; that in our estimate of 
 public principles and private virtue, in 
 our veneration of religion and piety, in 
 our devotion to civil and religious lib- 
 erty, in our regard for whatever ad- 
 vances human knowledge or impioves 
 human happiness, we ai'e not altogether 
 unworthy of our origin. 
 
 There is a local feeling connected with 
 this occasion, too strong to be resisted; 
 a sort of genius of the place, which in- 
 spires and awes us. "We feel that we are 
 
 on the spot where the first scene of our 
 history was laid: where the hearths and 
 altars of Xew England w^ere first placed: 
 where Christianity, and civilization, and 
 letters made their first lodgement, in a 
 vast extent of country, covered with a 
 wilderness, and peopled by rovirg bar« 
 barians. We are here, at the season of 
 the year at which the event took place. 
 The imagination irresistibly and rapidly 
 draws around us the principal features 
 and the leading characters in the origi- 
 nal scene. We cast our eyes abroad on 
 the ocean, and we see where the little 
 bark, with the intei'esting group upon its 
 deck, made its slow progress to the 
 shore. We look around us, and behold 
 the hills and promontories where the 
 anxious eyes of our fathers first saw the 
 places of habitation and of rest. W^e 
 feel the cold which benumbed, and lister 
 to the winds which pierced them. Be- 
 neath us is the Rock,^ on which New 
 England received the feet of the Pil- 
 grims. We seem even to behold them, 
 as they struggle Avith the elements, and, 
 with toilsome efforts, gain the shore. 
 We listen to the chiefs in council ; we 
 see the unexampled exhibition of female 
 fortitude and resignation; we hear the 
 whisperings of youthful impatience, and 
 we see, what a painter of our own has 
 also represented by his pencil,- chilled 
 and shivering childhood, houseless, but 
 for a mother's arms, couchless, but for 
 a mother's breast, till our own blood 
 almost freezes. The mild dignity of 
 Carver and of Bradford; the decisive 
 and soldier-like air and manner of Stan- 
 dish; the devout Brewster; the enter- 
 prising AUerton ; ^ the general firmness 
 and though tfulness of the whole band; 
 their conscious joy for dangers escaped; 
 
 1 An interesting account of the Ro(k may 
 be found in Dr. Thacher's History of the Town 
 of Plymouth, pp. 29, 198, 199. 
 
 2 See Note A, at the end of the Discourse. 
 
 8 For notices of Carver, Bradford, Standish, 
 Brewster, and Allerton, see Young's Chronicles 
 of Plymouth and ^lassachusetts ; Morton's Me- 
 morial, p. 120; Belknap's American Biography, 
 Vol. IL; Hutchinson's History, Vol. H., App., 
 pp. 450 et seq. ; Collections of the Jlassachu- 
 setts Historical Society; Winthrop's Journal; 
 and Thacher's History. 
 
28 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 their deep solicitude about dangers to 
 come ; their trust in Heaven ; their high 
 religious faith, full of confidence and an- 
 ticipation; aU of these seem to belong 
 to this place, and to be present upon 
 this occasion, to fill us with reverence 
 and admiration. 
 
 The settlement of New England by 
 the colony which landed here ^ on the 
 twenty-second'^ of December, sixteen 
 hundred and twenty, although not the 
 first European establishment in what 
 now constitutes the United States, was 
 yet so peculiar in its causes and charac- 
 ter, and has been followed and must 
 still be followed by such consequences, 
 as to give it a high claim to lasting com- 
 memoration. On these causes and con- 
 sequences, more than on its immediately 
 attendant circumstances, its importance, 
 as an historical event, depends. Great 
 actions and striking occurrences, having 
 excited a temporary admiration, often 
 pass away and are forgotten, because 
 they leave no lasting results, affecting 
 the prosperity and hapjiiness of commu- 
 nities. Such is frequently the fortune 
 of the most brilliant military achieve- 
 ments. Of the ten thousand battles 
 which have been fought, of all the 
 fields fertilized with carnage, of the 
 banners which have been bathed in 
 blood, of the warriors who have hoped 
 that they had risen from the field of con- 
 quest to a glory as bright and as durable 
 as the stars, how few that continue long 
 tc interest mankind! The victory of 
 yesterday is reversed by the defeat of to- 
 day; the star of military glory, rising 
 like a meteor, like a meteor has fallen ; 
 disgrace and disaster hang on the heels 
 of conquest and renown ; victor and van- 
 quished presently pass away to oblivion, 
 and the world goes on in its course, with 
 the lo.ss only of so many lives and so 
 much treasure. 
 
 But if thiij be frequently, or generally, 
 
 1 For the original name of what is now Ply- 
 mouth, see Lives of .Vincrican Governors, p 38, 
 note, a work jireparcd with great care by J. B. 
 Moore, Kstj. 
 
 2 The twenty -first is now acknowledged to be 
 the true niiniversary. See the Report of the 
 Pilgrim Soi^iety on the subject. 
 
 the fortune of military achievements, it 
 is not always so. There are enterprises, 
 military as well as civil, which some- 
 times check the current of events, give 
 a new turn to human affairs, and trans- 
 mit their consequences through ages. 
 We see their importance in their results, 
 and call them great, because great thinga 
 follow. There have been battles which 
 have fixed the fate of nations. These 
 come down to us in history with a ?olid 
 and pennanent interest, not created by 
 a display of glittering armor, the rush 
 of adverse battalions, the sinking and 
 rising of pennons, the flight, the pursuit, 
 and the victory; but by their eifect in 
 advancing or retarding human knowl- 
 edge, in overthrowing or establishing 
 despotism, in extending or destroying 
 himian happiness. When the traveller 
 pauses on the plain of Marathon, wliat 
 are the emotions which most strongly 
 agitate his breast? What is that glori- 
 ous recollection, which tlirills through 
 his frame, and suffuses his eyes? Not, 
 I imagine, that Grecian skill and Gre- 
 cian valor were here most signally dis- 
 played; but that Greece herself was 
 saved. It is because to this spot, and 
 to the event which has rendered it im- 
 mortal, he refers all the succeeding glo- 
 ries of the republic. It is because, if 
 that day had gone otherwise, Greece had 
 perished. It is because he perceives that 
 her philosophers and orators, her poets 
 and painters, her sculptors and archi- 
 tects, her governments and free institu- 
 tions, point backward to ]\Larathon, and 
 that their future existence seems to have 
 been suspended on the contingency, 
 whether the Persian or the Grecian ban- 
 ner sliould wave victorious in the beams 
 of that day's setting sun. And, as his 
 imagination kindles at the retrospect, he 
 is transported back to tlie interesting 
 moment; he counts the fearful odds of 
 the contending hosts; his interest for 
 the result overwhelms him ; he trembles, 
 as if it were still uncertain, and seems 
 to doubt whetlier he may consider Soc- 
 rates and Plato, Demosthenes, Sopho- 
 cles, and Phidias, as secure, yet, to him- 
 self and to the woild 
 
 "If we conquer," said the Athenian 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 29 
 
 comiiKUuler on the approach of that de- 
 cisive day, "if we conquer, we shall 
 make Athens the greatest city of 
 Greece."^ A prophecy how well ful- 
 filled! "If God prosper us," might 
 have been the more appropriate lan- 
 guage of our fathers, when they landed 
 upon this Kock, " if God prosper us, we 
 shall here begin a work which shall last 
 for ages ; we shall plant here a new soci- 
 ety, in the princijiles of the fullest lib- 
 erty and the purest religion; we shall 
 subdue this wilderness wliich is before 
 us; we shall fill this region of the great 
 continent, which stretches almost from 
 pole to pole, with civilization and Chris- 
 tianity; the temples of the true God 
 shall rise, where now asoends the smoke 
 of idolatrous sacrifice; fields and gar- 
 dens, the flowers of summer, and the 
 waving and golden harvest of autumn, 
 shall spread over a thousand hills, and 
 stretch along a tho;isand valleys, never 
 yet, since tlie creation, reclaimed to the 
 use of civilized man. We shall whiten 
 this coast with the canvas of a prosper- 
 ous commerce; we shall stud the long 
 and winding shore with a hundred cit- 
 ies. That which we sow in weakness 
 shall be raised in streng-th. From our 
 sincere, but houseless worship, there 
 shall spring splendid temples to record 
 God's goodness ; from the simplicity of 
 our social union, there shall arise wise 
 and politic constitutions of government, 
 full of the liberty which we ourselves 
 bring and breathe; from our zeal for 
 learning, institutions shall spring which 
 shall scatter the light of knowledge 
 throughout the land, and, in time, pay- 
 ing back where they have borrowed, 
 i^hall contribute their part to the great 
 aggregate of human knowledge ; and our 
 descendants, through all generations, 
 shall look back to this spot, and to this 
 hoar, with unabated affection and re- 
 gard." - 
 
 A brief remembrance of the causes 
 which led to the settlement of this place; 
 eome account of the peculiarities and 
 characteristic qualities of that settle- 
 
 1 Herodot. VI. § 109. 
 
 ment, as distinguished from other in- 
 stances of colonization ; a short notice of 
 the progress of New England in the great 
 interests of society, during the century 
 which is now elapsed ; with a few obser- 
 vations on the principles upon which so- 
 ciety and government are established in 
 this countiy; comprise all that can !)« 
 attempted, and much more than can be 
 satisfactorily performed, on the present 
 occasion. 
 
 Of the motives which influenced the 
 first settlers to a voluntary exile, in- 
 duced them to relinquish their native 
 covmtiy, and to seek an asylum in tliis 
 then unexplored wilderness, the first and 
 principal, no doubt, were connected with 
 religion. They sought to enjoy a higher 
 degree of religious freedom, and what 
 they esteemed a purer form of religious 
 worship, than was allowed to their choice, 
 or presented to their imitation, in the 
 Old World. The love of religious lib- 
 erty is a stronger sentiment, when fully 
 excited, than an attachment to civil or 
 political freedom. That freedom which 
 the conscience demands, and which men 
 feel bound by their hope of salvation to 
 contend for, can hardly fail to be at- 
 tained. Conscience, in the cause of re- 
 ligion and the worship of the Deity, 
 prepares the mind to act and to suffer 
 beyond almost all other causes. It some- 
 times gives an impulse so irresistible, 
 that no fetters of power or of opinion 
 can withstand it. Ilistoiy instructs U3 
 that this love of religious liberty, a com- 
 pound sentiment in the breast of man, 
 made up of the clearest sense of right 
 and the highest conviction of duty, i.s 
 able to look the sternest despotism in 
 the face, and, with means apparently 
 most inadequate, to shake principal iti 58 
 and powers. There is a boldness, a 
 spirit of daring, in religious reformers, 
 not to be measured by the general rules 
 which control men's purposes and ac- 
 tions. If the hand of power be laid 
 \ipon it, this only seems to augment its 
 force and its elasticity, and to cause its 
 action to be more formidable and vio- 
 lent. Human invention has devised 
 nothing, human ^ower has compassed 
 
30 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAXU. 
 
 nothing, that can forcibly restrain it, 
 when it breaks forth. Xothing can stop 
 it, but to give way to it; nothing can 
 check it, but indulgence. It loses its 
 power only when it has gained its ob- 
 ject. The principle of toleration, to 
 which the world has come so slowly, is 
 at once the most just and the most wise 
 of all principles. Even when religious 
 feeling takes a character of extravagance 
 and enthusiasm, and seems to threaten 
 the order of society and shake the col- 
 iimns of the social edifice, its principal 
 danger is in its restraint. If it be al- 
 lowed indulgence and expansion, like 
 the elemental fires, it only agitates, and 
 perhaps purifies, the atmosphere; while 
 its efforts to throw off restraint would 
 burst the world asunder. 
 
 It is certain, that, although many of 
 them were republicans in principle, we 
 have no evidence that our New Ensilaud 
 ancestors would have emigrated, as they 
 did, from their own native country, 
 would have become wanderers in Europe, 
 and finally would have undertaken the 
 establishment of a colony here, merely 
 from their dislike of the political sys- 
 tems of Europe. They fled not so much 
 from the ci^^l government, as from the 
 hierarchy, and the laws which enforced 
 conformity to the church establishment. 
 I\Ir. Robinson had left England as early 
 as 1608, on account of the persecutions 
 for non-conformity, and had retired to 
 Holland. He left England from no dis- 
 appointed ambition in affairs of state, 
 from no regrets at the want of prefer- 
 ment in the church, nor from any motive 
 of distinction or of gain. Uniformity in 
 matters of religion was pressed with such 
 extreme rigor, that a voluntary exile 
 seemed the most eligible mode of escap- 
 ing from tlio penalties of non-compliance. 
 The accession of Elizabeth had, it is 
 true, quiMiched the fires of Smithfield, 
 and put an end to the easy acquisition of 
 the crown of martyi-dora. Her long reign 
 had estal)lished the Reformation, but 
 toleration was a virtue beyond her con- 
 ception, and beyond the age. She left 
 no example of it to her successor; and 
 he was not of a character which rendered 
 it probable that a sentiment either so 
 
 wise or so liberal would originate with 
 him. At the [jreseut period it seems in 
 credible that the learned, aocomplished, 
 unassuming, and inoffensive Robinson 
 should neither be tolerated in his peace- 
 able mode of worship in his own coun- 
 try, nor suffered qmetly to depart from 
 it. Yet such was the fact. He left his 
 country by stealth, that he might else- 
 where enjoy those rights which ought 
 to belong to men in all countries. The 
 departure of the Pilgrims for Holland 
 is deeply interesting, from its circum- 
 stances, and also as it marks the charac- 
 ter of the times, independently of it3 
 connection with names now incorporated 
 with the history of empire. Tlie em- 
 barkation was intended to be made in 
 such a manner that it might escape the 
 notice of the officers of govenmieut. 
 Great pains had been taken to secure 
 boats, which should come undiscovered 
 to the- shore, and receive the fugitives; 
 and frequent disappointments had been 
 exj^erienced in this respect. 
 
 At length the appointed time came, 
 bringing with it unusual severity of cold 
 and rain. An unfrequented and barren 
 heath, on the shores of Lincolnshire, was 
 the selected spot, where the feet of the 
 Pilgi-ims were to tread, for the last time, 
 the land of their fathers. The vessel 
 which was to receive them did not come 
 until the next day, and in the mean 
 time the little band was collected, and 
 men and women and children and bag- 
 gage were crowded together, in melan- 
 choly and distressed confusion. The sea 
 was rough, and the women and children 
 were already sick, from their passage 
 down the river to the place of embarka- 
 tion on the sea. At length the wished- 
 for boat silently and fearfully approaches 
 the shore, and men and women and chil- 
 dren, shaking with fear and with cold, 
 as many as tlie small vessel could bear, 
 venture off on a dangerous sea. Imme- 
 diately the advance of horses is heard 
 from behind, armed men appear, and 
 those not yet embarked are seized and 
 taken into custody. In the hurry of the 
 moment, the first parties had been sent 
 on board without any attempt to keep 
 members of tlie same fami'y together, 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 31 
 
 and on account of tlie appearance of the 
 horsemen, the boat never returned for 
 the residue. Those who had got away, 
 and those who had not, were in equal 
 distress. A storm, of great violence and 
 long duration, arose at sea, which not 
 only protracted the voyage, rendered dis- 
 tressing by the want of all those accom- 
 modations which the interruption of the 
 embarkation had occasioned, but also 
 forced the vessel out of her course, and 
 menaced immediate shipwreck ; while 
 those on shore, when they were dismissed 
 from the custody of the officers of jus- 
 tice, having no longer homes or houses 
 to retire to, and their friends and pro- 
 tectors being already gone, became ob- 
 jects of necessary charity, as well as of 
 deep commiseration. 
 
 As this scene passes before us, we can 
 hardly forbear asking whether this be a 
 band of malefactors and felons flying 
 from justice. "What are their crimes, 
 that they hide themselves in darkness ? 
 To what punishment are they exposed, 
 that, to avoid it, men, and women, and 
 children, thus encounter the surf of the 
 Xorth Sea and the terrors of a night 
 storm ? What induces this armed pur- 
 suit, and this arrest of fugitives, of all 
 ages and both sexes? Truth does not 
 allow us to answer these inquiries in a 
 manner that does credit to the wisdom 
 or the justice of the times. This was 
 not the flight of guilt, but of virtue. It 
 was an humble and peaceable religion, 
 flying from causeless oppression. It was 
 conscience, attempting to escape from 
 the arbitrary rule of the Stuarts. It was 
 Robinson and Brewster, leading off their 
 little band from their native soil, at first 
 to find shelter on the shore of the neigh- 
 boring continent, but ultimately to come 
 hither ; and having surmounted all diffi- 
 culties and braved a thousand dangers, 
 to find here a place of refuge and of rest. 
 Thanks -be to God, that tliis spot was 
 honored as the asylum of religious lib- 
 erty! May its standard, reared here, re- 
 main for ever ! May it rise up as high as 
 heaven, till its banner shaU fan the air 
 of both continents, and wave as a glori- 
 ous ensign of peace and security to the 
 cations ! 
 
 The peculiar character, condition, and 
 circumstances of tlie colonies which in- 
 troduced civilization and an English racft 
 into Xew^ England, afford a most inter- 
 esting and extensive topic of discu.ssion. 
 On these, much of our subsequent char- 
 acter and fortune has depended. Tiieir 
 influence has essentially affected our 
 whole history, through the two centuries 
 which have elapsed; and as they have 
 become intimately connected with gov- 
 ernment, laws, and property, as well as 
 with our opinions on the subjects of re- 
 ligion and civil liberty, that influence i3 
 likely to continue to be felt through the 
 centuries which sliall succeed. Emigra- 
 tion from one region to another, and the 
 emission of colonies to people countries 
 more or less distant from the residence 
 of the parent stock, are common inci- 
 dents in the history of mankind; but it 
 has not often, perhaps never, happened, 
 that the establishment of colonies should 
 be attempted under circumstances, how- 
 ever beset wdth present difficulties and 
 dangers, yet so favorable to ultimate 
 success, and so conducive to magnificent 
 resiUts, as those which attended the first 
 settlements on this part of the American 
 continent. In other instances, emigra- 
 tion has proceeded from a less exalted 
 purpose, in periods of less general intel- 
 ligence, or more wnthout plan and by 
 accident ; or under circumstances, physi- 
 cal and moral, less favorable to the ex- 
 pectation of laying a foundation for great 
 public prosperity and future empire. 
 
 A great resemblance exists, obviously, 
 between all the English colonies estab- 
 lished within the present limits of the 
 United States ; but the occasion attracts 
 our attention more immediately to those 
 which took possession of New England, 
 and the peculiarities of these furnish a 
 strong contrast with most other instaucea 
 of colonization. 
 
 Among the ancient nations, the Greeks, 
 no doubt, sent forth from their territories 
 the greatest number of colonies. So nu- 
 merous, indeed, were they, and so great 
 the extent of space over which they were 
 spread, that tlie parent country fondly 
 and naturally persuaded herself, that Sy 
 means of them she had laid a sure foun- 
 
82 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 datiun for the universal civilization of 
 the world. These establishments, from 
 obvious causes, were most numerous in 
 places most contiguous; yet they were 
 found on the coasts of France, on the 
 shores of the Euxine Sea, in Mrica, and 
 even, as is alleged, on the borders of 
 India These emigrations appear to 
 have been sometimes voluntary' and 
 sometimes compulsorj'; arising from the 
 spontaneous enterprise of individuals, 
 or the order and regulation of govern- 
 ment. It was a common opinion with 
 ancient writers, that they were under- 
 taken in religious obedience to the com- 
 mands of oracles, and it is probable that 
 impressions of this sort might have had 
 more or less influence ; but it is probable, 
 also, that on these occasions the oracles 
 did not speak a language dissonant from 
 the views and purposes of the state. 
 
 Political science among the Greeks 
 seems never to have extended to the 
 comprehension of a system, which should 
 be adequate to the government of a gi'eat 
 nation upon principles of liberty. They 
 were accustomed only to the contempla- 
 tion of smaU republics, and were led to 
 consider an augmented population as in- 
 compatible with free institutions. The 
 desire of a remedy for this supposed evil, 
 and the wish to establish marts for trade, 
 led the governments often to undertake 
 the establishment of colonies as an affair 
 of state expediency. Colonization and 
 commerce, indeed, would naturally be- 
 come objects of interest to an ingenious 
 and enterprising people, inhabiting a 
 territory closely circumscribed in its 
 limits, and in no small part mountain- 
 ous and sterile ; while the islands of the 
 adjacent seas, and the promontories and 
 coasts of the neigliboring continents, by 
 their mere proximity, strongly solicited 
 the excited spirit of emigi-ation. Such 
 was this proximity, in many instances, 
 tliat the new settlements appeared rather 
 to be the mere extension of population 
 ever contiguous territory, than the es- 
 tablisliment of distant colonies. In pro- 
 portion as they were near to the parent 
 state, they would be under its authority, 
 and partake of its fortunes. The colony 
 at Marseilles might perceive lightly, or 
 
 not at all, the sway of Phocis ; while the 
 islands in the ^.-Egean Sea could hardly 
 attain to independence of their Athenian 
 origin. Many of these establislmients 
 took place at an early age ; and if there 
 were defects in the governments of the 
 parent states, the colonists did not pos- 
 sess philosophy or experience suiBcient 
 to correct such evils in their own insti- 
 tutions, even if they had not been, by 
 other causes, deprived of the power. An 
 immediate necessity, connected with the 
 support of life, was the main and direct 
 inducement to these undertakings, and 
 there could hardly exist more tlian tlie 
 hope of a successful imitation of insti- 
 tutions with which they were already 
 acquainted, and of holding an equality 
 with their neighbors in the course of 
 improvement. The laws and customs, 
 both political and mmiicipal, as well as 
 the religious worship of the parent city, 
 were transferred to the colony; and the 
 parent city herself, with aU such of her 
 colonies as were not too far remote for 
 frequent intercourse and common senti- 
 ments, would appear like a family of 
 cities, more or less dependent, and more 
 or less connected. "We know how imper- 
 fect this system was, as a system of gen- 
 eral politics, and what scope it gave to 
 those mutual dissensions and conflicts 
 which proved so fatal to Greece. 
 
 But it is more pertinent to our present 
 pm-pose to observe, that nothing existed 
 in the character of Grecian emigrations, 
 or in the spirit and intelligence of the 
 emigrants, likely to give a new and im- 
 portant direction to human affairs, or a 
 new impulse to the human miiul. Their 
 motives were not high enougli, their 
 views were not sufficiently large and 
 prospective. They went not forth, like 
 our ancestors, to erect systems of more 
 perfect civil liberty, or to enjoy a higher 
 decree of relierious freedom. Abc'e all, 
 there was nothing in the religion and 
 learning of the age, that could either 
 inspire high purposes, or give the ability 
 to execute them. "Whatever restraints 
 on civil liberty, or whatever abuses in 
 religious worship, existed at the time of 
 our fathers' emigi-ation, yet even then 
 all was light in the moral and mentai 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 3b 
 
 world, in comparison with its condition 
 in most periods of the ancient states. 
 The settlement of a new continent, in 
 an age of i^rogressive knowledge and im- 
 provement, could not but do more than 
 merely enlarge the natural boundaries of 
 the habitable world. It could not but 
 do much more even than extend com- 
 ni'jrce and increase wealth among the 
 human race. We see how this event has 
 acted, how it must have acted, and won- 
 der only why it did not act sooner, in 
 the production of moral effects, on the 
 Btate of human knowledge, the general 
 tone of human sentiments, and the pros- 
 pects of human happiness. It gave to 
 civilized man not only a new continent 
 to be inhabited and cultivated, and new 
 seas to be explored; but it gave him 
 also a new range for his thoughts, new 
 objects for cm'iosity, and new excite- 
 ments to knowledge and improvement. 
 
 Roman colonization resembled, far less 
 than that of the Greeks, the original 
 settlements of this country. Power and 
 dominion were the objects of Rome, even 
 in her colonial establishments. Her 
 whole exterior aspect was for centuries 
 hostile and terrific. She grasped at do- 
 minion, from India to Britain, and her 
 measures of colonization partook of the 
 character of her general system. Her 
 policy was military, because her objects 
 were power, ascendency, and subjuga- 
 tion. Detachments of emigrants from 
 Rome incorporated themselves with, and 
 governed, the original inhabitants of 
 conquered countries. She sent citizens 
 where she had first sent soldiers ; her law 
 followed her sword. Her colonies were 
 a sort of military establishment; so 
 many advanced posts in the career of 
 her dominion. A governor from Rome 
 ruled the new colony with absolute sway, 
 and often with unbounded rapacity. In 
 Sicily, in Gaul, in Spain, and in Asia, 
 the power of Rome prevailed, not nomi- 
 nally only, but really and effectually. 
 Those who immediately exercised it were 
 Roman ; tlie tone and tendency of its 
 administration, Roman. Rome herself 
 continued to be the heart and centre of 
 the great system which she had estab- 
 lished. Extortion and rapacity, find- 
 
 ing a wide and often rich field of action 
 in the provinces, looked nevertheless to 
 the banks of the Tiber, as the scene in 
 which their ill-gotten treasures should be 
 displayed ; or, if a spirit of more honest 
 acquisition prevailed, the object, never- 
 theless, was ultimate enjojTnent in Rome 
 itself. If our own history and our own 
 times did not sufficiently expose the in- 
 herent and incurable evils of provincial 
 government, we might see them por- 
 trayed, to our amazement, in the deso 
 lated and ruined provinces of the Roman 
 empire. We might hear them, in a 
 voice that terrifies us, in those strains 
 of complaint and accusation, which the 
 advocates of the provinces poured forth 
 in the Roman Forum: — " Quas ros 
 luxuries in flagitiis, crudelitas in sup- 
 pliciis, avaritia in rapinis, superbia in 
 contumeliis, efficere potuisset, eas omnes 
 sese pertulisse." 
 
 As was to be expected, the Roman 
 Provinces partook of the fortunes, as 
 well as of the sentiments and general 
 character, of the seat of empire. They 
 lived together with her, they flourished 
 with her, and feU with her. The 
 branches were lopped away even before 
 the vast and venerable trunk itself fell 
 prostrate to the earth. Nothing had 
 proceeded from her which could support 
 itself, and bear up the name of its origin, 
 when her ovm. sustaining arm should be 
 enfeebled or withdrawn. It was not given 
 to Rome to see, either at her zenith or in 
 her decline, a child of her own, distant, 
 indeed, and independent of her control, 
 yet speaking her language and inherit- 
 ing her blood, springing forward to a 
 competition with her own power, and a 
 comparison with her own great renown. 
 She saw not a vast region of the earth 
 peopled from her stock, fuU oi states 
 and political communities, improving 
 upon the models of her institutions, and 
 breathing in fuller measure the spirit 
 which she had breathed in the best 
 periods of her existence; enjopng and 
 extending her arts and her literature; 
 rising rapidly from political childhood 
 to manly strength and independence; 
 her offspring, yet now her equal ; vuicon- 
 nected with the causes which might 
 
84 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 affect the duration of her ovm power 
 and greatness; of common origin, but 
 not linked to a common fate; giving 
 ample pledge, that her name should not 
 be forgotten, that her language should 
 not cease to be used among men ; that 
 ■whatsoever she had done for human 
 knowledge and human happiness should 
 be treasured up and preserved ; that the 
 record of her existence and her achieve- 
 ments should not be obscured, although, 
 in the inscrutable pm-poses of Provi- 
 dence, it might be her destiny to fall 
 from opulence and splendor; although 
 the time might come, ■when darkness 
 should settle on all her hills ; ■when for- 
 eign or domestic violence should overturn 
 her altars and her temples ; when igno- 
 rance and despotism should fill the places 
 ■where Laws, and Arts, and Liberty had 
 flourished; when the feet of barbarism 
 should trample on the tombs of her con- 
 suls, and the walls of her senate-house 
 and forum echo only to the voice of 
 savage triumph. She saw not this glori- 
 ous vision, to inspire and fortify her 
 against the possible decay or do^wnfaU 
 of her power. Happy are they who in 
 our day may behold it, if they shall con- 
 template it with the sentiments which it 
 ouglit to inspire ! 
 
 The Xew England Colonies differ quite 
 as widely from the Asiatic establishments 
 of the modern European nations, as from 
 the models of the ancient states. The 
 sole object of those establishments was 
 originally trade ; although we have seen, 
 in one of them, the anomaly of a mere 
 trading company attaining a political 
 character, disbursing revenues, and main- 
 taining armies and forti'esses, until it has 
 extended its control over seventy mil- 
 lions of people. Differing fi-om these, 
 and still more from the New England 
 and North American Colonies, are the 
 European settlements in the AVest Lidia 
 Islands. It is not strange, that, when 
 men's minds were tm-ned to the settlement 
 of America, different objects should be 
 proposed by those who emigrated to the 
 different regions of so vast a country. 
 Climate, soil, and condition were not all 
 equally favorable to all pursuits. In 
 tlio NVest Indies, the purpose of those 
 
 who ■went thither was to engage in that 
 species of agricultiu-e, suited to the soil 
 and climate, which seems to beai more 
 resemblance to commerce than to the 
 hard and plain tillage of Xew England. 
 The great staples of these coimtries, 
 being partly an agricultural and partly 
 a manufactured product, and not being 
 of the necessaries of life, become tlie 
 object of calculation, with respect tc a 
 profitable investment of capital, like any 
 other enterprise of trade or manufacture. 
 The more especially, as, requiring, by 
 necessity or habit, slave labor for their 
 production, the capital necessary to car- 
 ry on the work of this production is very 
 considerable. The West Indies are re- 
 sorted to, therefore, rather for the in- 
 vestment of capital than for the purpose 
 of sustaining life by personal labor. Such 
 as possess a considerable amount of capi- 
 tal, or such as choose to adventure in 
 commercial speculations without capital, 
 can alone be fitted to be emigrants to 
 tlie islands. The agriculture of these 
 regions, as befoi'e obsen-ed, is a sort of 
 commerce ; and it is a species of employ- 
 ment in which labor seems to form an 
 inconsiderable ingredient in the produc- 
 tive causes, since the portion of white 
 labor is exceedingly small, and slave 
 labor is rather more like profit on stock 
 or capital than Uibor properly so called. 
 The individual who vmdertakes an es- 
 tablishment of this kind takes into the 
 account the cost of the necessary num- 
 ber of slaves, in the same manner as he 
 calculates the cost of the land. The un- 
 certainty, too, of this species of employ- 
 ment, affords another ground of resem- 
 blance to commerce. Although gainful 
 on the whole, and in a series of years, it 
 is often very disastrous for a single year, 
 and, as the capital is not readily invested 
 in other pursuits, bad crops or bad mar- 
 kets not only affect the profits, but the 
 capital itself. Hence the sy.dden depres- 
 sions which take place in the value of 
 such estates. 
 
 But the great and leading observation, 
 relative to these establisliments, remains 
 to be made. It is, that tlie owners of 
 tlie soil and of the capital seldom con 
 sider themselves at honif. in the colony. 
 
FIKST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 35 
 
 A very gi'eat portion of the soil itself is 
 usually owned in the mother country; a 
 Btill greater is mortgaged for capital ob- 
 tained there; and, in general, those who 
 are to derive an interest from the prod- 
 ucts look to the parent countiy as the 
 place for enjojTnent of their -wealth. The 
 popiilation is therefore constantly fluc- 
 tuating. Nobody comes but to return. 
 A constant succession of owners, agents, 
 aud factors takes place, "^^^^atsoever the 
 Boil, forced by the unmitigated toil of 
 slavery, can jneld, is sent home to defray 
 rents, and interest, and agencies, or to 
 give the means of living in a better so- 
 ciety. In such a state, it is evident that 
 no spirit of permanent improvement is 
 likely to spring up. Profits will not be 
 invested with a distant view of benefit- 
 ing posterity. Roads and canals will 
 hardly be built ; schools will not be 
 founded; colleges will not be endowed. 
 There will be few fixtures in society; 
 no principles of utility or of elegance, 
 planted now, with the hope of being de- 
 veloped and expanded hereafter. Profit, 
 immediate profit, must be the principal 
 active spring in the social system. There 
 may be many particular exceptions to 
 these general remarks, but the outline of 
 the whole is such as is here drawn. 
 
 Another most important consequence 
 of such a state of things is, that no idea 
 of independence of the parent country is 
 likely to arise; unless, indeed, it should 
 spring up in a form that would threaten 
 universal desolation. The inhabitants 
 have no strong attachment to the place 
 which they inhabit. The hope of a 
 great portion of them is to leave it ; and 
 their great desire, to leave it soon. How- 
 ever useful they may be to the parent 
 state, how much soever they may add to 
 the conveniences and luxuries of life, 
 these colonies are not favored spots for 
 the expansion of the human mind, for 
 the progress of permanent improvement, 
 or for sowing the seeds of future inde- 
 pendent empire. 
 
 Different, indeed, most widely differ- 
 ent, from all these instances of emigra- 
 tion and plantation, were the condition, 
 the pui"poses, and the prospects of our 
 fathers, when they established their in- 
 
 fant colony upon this spot. They came 
 hither to a land from which thoy were 
 never to return. Hither they had brought, 
 and here they were to fix, their hopes, 
 their attachments, and their objects in 
 life. Sonae natural tears they shed, as 
 they left the pleasant abodes of their 
 fathers, and some emotions they sup- 
 pressed, when the white cliffs of their 
 native comitry, now seen for the last 
 time, grew dim to their sight. They 
 were acting, however, upon a resolution 
 not to be daunted. AVith whatever sti- 
 fled regi-ets, with whatever occasional 
 hesitation, with whatever appalling ap- 
 Ijrehensious, which might sometimes 
 arise with force to shake the firmest 
 pm-pose, they had yet committed them- 
 selves to Heaven and the elements ; and 
 a thousand leagues of water soon inter- 
 posed to separate them for ever from the 
 region which gave them birth. A new 
 existence awaited them here ; and when 
 they saw these shores, rough, cold, bar- 
 barous, and barren, as then they were, 
 they beheld their comitry. That mixed 
 and strong feeling, which we call love 
 of country, and which is, in general, 
 never extinguished in the heart of man, 
 grasped and embraced its proper object 
 here. "UTiatever constitutes country, ex- 
 cept the earth and the sun, all the moral 
 causes of affection and attachment which 
 operate upon the heart, they had brought 
 with them to their new abode. Here 
 were now their families and friends, 
 their homes, and their property. Before 
 they reached the shore, they had estab- 
 lished the elements of a social system,* 
 and at a much earlier j^eriod had settled 
 their forms of religious worship. At the 
 moment of their landing, therefore, they 
 possessed institutions of government, and 
 institutions of religion: and friends and 
 families, and social and religious insti- 
 tutions, framed by consent, founded on 
 choice and preference, how nearly do 
 
 1 For the compact to which reference is 
 made in tlie text, signed on board the Jlay- 
 flower, see Hutchinson's History, Yol. H., Ap- 
 pendix, No. I. For an eloquent description of 
 the manner in which the first Christian Sabbath 
 was passed on board the Mayflower, at Ply- 
 mouth, see Barnes's Discourse at Worcester 
 
36 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLANT). 
 
 these fill up our whole idea of country! 
 The morning that beamed on the first 
 night of their repose saw the Pilgrims 
 akeady at home in their country-. There 
 were political institutions, and ciAol lib- 
 erty, and religious worship. Poetry has 
 fancied nothing, in the wanderings of 
 heroes, so distinct and characteristic. 
 Here was man, indeed, unprotected, and 
 unprovided for, on the shore of a rude 
 and fearful wilderness ; but it was poli- 
 tic, intelligent, and educated man. Ev- 
 eiT thing was civilized but the physical 
 world. Institutions, containing in sub- 
 stance all that ages had done for human 
 government, were organized in a forest. 
 Cultivated mind was to act on uncul- 
 tivated natui-e; and, more than all, a 
 government and a country were to com- 
 mence, with the very fii-st foundations 
 laid under the divine light of the Chris- 
 tian religion. Happy auspices of a hap- 
 py futurity ! "Who would wish that his 
 country's existence had otherwise begoin? 
 Who would desire the power of going 
 back to the ages of fable ? ^Vho would 
 wish for an origin obscured in the dark- 
 ness of antiquity ? Who would wish for 
 other emblazoning of his coimtry's her- 
 aldry, or other ornaments of her geneal- 
 ogy, than to be able to say, that her first 
 existence was with intelligence, her first 
 breath the inspiration of liberty, her 
 first principle the truth of divine re- 
 ligion ? 
 
 Local attachments and sympathies 
 would ere long spring up in the breasts 
 of our ancestors, endearing to them the 
 place of their refuge. Whatever natural 
 objects are associated with interesting 
 scenes and high efforts obtain a hold on 
 human feeling, and demand from the 
 heart a sort of recognition and regard. 
 This llock soon became hallowed in the 
 esteem of the Pilgrims, ^ and these hills 
 
 1 The names of the passengers in the May- 
 flower, with some account of them, may be 
 found in the New England Genealogical Regis- 
 ter, Vol. I. p. 47, and a narration of some of the 
 incidents of the voyage, Vol. II. p. 18G. For 
 an account of Mrs. Wliite, the motlier of the 
 first chilli born in New England, see IJaylies's 
 History of Plymouth, Vol. II. p. 18, and for a 
 notice of her son Peregrine, see Moore's Li%'es 
 of American Governors, Vol. I. p. 31. note 
 
 grateful to their sight. Neither they noi 
 their children were again to tUl the soil 
 of England, nor again to traverse the 
 seas which surroimd her.- But here was 
 a new sea, now open to their enterprise, 
 and a new soU, which had not failed to 
 respond gratefully to their laborioirs in- 
 dustry, and which was already assuming 
 a robe of verdure. Hardly had they pro- 
 vided shelter for the living, ere they were 
 summoned to erect sepulchres for the 
 dead. The ground had become- sacred, 
 by enclosing the remauis of some of their 
 companions and connections. A parent, 
 a child, a husband, or a wife, had gone 
 the way of all flesh, and mingled with 
 the dust of New England. We natu- 
 rally look with strong emotions to the 
 spot, though it be a wilderness, where 
 the ashes of those we have loved repose. 
 Where the heart has laid down what it 
 loved most, there it is desirous of lapng 
 itself down. No sculptm-ed marble, no 
 enduring monument, no honorable in- 
 scription, no ever-burning taper that 
 would drive away the darkness of the 
 tomb, can soften our sense of the reality 
 of death, and hallow to our feelings the 
 groimd which is to cover us, like the 
 consciousness that we sliall sleep, dust 
 to dust, with the objects of our affec- 
 tions. 
 
 In a .short time other causes sprung 
 up to bind the Pilgrims with new cords 
 to their chosen land. Children were 
 born, and the hopes of future genera- 
 tions arose, in the spot of their new 
 habitation. The second generation 
 found this the land of their nativity, 
 and saw that they were bound to its 
 fortunes. They beheld their fathers' 
 graves around them, atid while they 
 read the memorials of their toils and 
 labors, they rejoiced in the inheritance 
 wliioh tliey found bequeathed to them. 
 
 Under the influence of these causes, 
 it was to be expected that an interest 
 and a feeling should arise hero, entirely 
 different from the interest and feeling 
 of mere Englishmen ; and all the subse- 
 
 2 See the admirable letter written on board 
 the Arbella, in Hutchinson's History, Vol. I., 
 Appendix, No. I. 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 37 
 
 quent history of the Colonies proves this 
 to have actually and gradually taken 
 place. With a general acknowledgment 
 of the supremacy of tlie British crown, 
 there was, from the first, a repugnance 
 to an entire submission to the control of 
 British legislation. Tlie Colonies stood 
 upon their charters, which, as they con- 
 tended, exempted them from the ordi- 
 nary power of the British Parliament, 
 and authorized them to conduct their 
 own concerns by their own counsels. 
 They utterly resisted the notion that 
 they were to be ruled by the mere au- 
 thority of the government at home, and 
 would not endure even that their own 
 charter governments should be estab- 
 lished on the other side of the Atlantic. 
 It was not a controlling or protecting 
 board in England, but a government of 
 their own, and existing immediately 
 within their limits, which could satisfy 
 their wishes. It was easy to foresee, 
 what we know also to have happened, 
 that the first gi-eat cause of collision and 
 jealousy would be, under the notion of 
 political economy then and stiU preva- 
 lent in Europe, an attempt on the part 
 of the mother country to monopolize the 
 trade of the Colonies. Whoever has 
 looked deeply into the causes which pro- 
 duced our Revolution has found, if I 
 mistake not, the original principle far 
 back in this claim, on the part of Eng- 
 land, to monopolize our trade, and a 
 continued effort on the part of the Colo- 
 nies to resist or evade that monopoly; 
 if, indeed, it be not still more just and 
 philosophical to go farther back, and to 
 consider it decided, that an independent 
 gDvernment must arise here, the moment 
 it was ascertained that an English 
 colony, such as landed in this place, 
 could sustain itself against the dangers 
 which surrounded it, and, with other 
 similar establishments, overspread the 
 land with an English population. Ac- 
 cidental causes retarded at times, and at 
 times accelerated, the progress of the 
 controversy. The Colonies wanted 
 strength, and time gave it to them. 
 They required measures of strong and 
 palpable injustice, on the part of the 
 mother country, to justify resistance; 
 
 the early part of the late king's reign 
 furnished them. They needed spirits 
 of high order, of great daring, of long 
 foresight, and of commanding power, to 
 seize the favoring occasion to strike a 
 blow, which should sever, for all time, 
 the tie of colonial dependence; and 
 these sph'its were found, in all the ex- 
 tent which that or any crisis could de- 
 mand, in Otis, Adams, Hancock, and 
 the other immediate authors of our 
 independence. 
 
 Still, it is true that, for a century, 
 causes had been in operation tending to 
 prepare things for this great result. In 
 the year 1660 the English Act of Navi- 
 gation was passed; the first and grand 
 object of which seems to have been, to 
 secure to England the whole trade with 
 her plantations.^ It was provided by 
 that act, that none but English ships 
 should transport American produce over 
 the ocean, and that the principal articles 
 of that produce should be allowed to be 
 sold only in the markets of the mother 
 country. Three years afterwards an- 
 other law was passed, which enacted, 
 that such commodities as the Colonies 
 might wish to purchase should be 
 bought only in the markets of the 
 mother country. Severe rules were pre- 
 scribed to enforce the provisions of these 
 laws, and heavy penalties imposed on 
 aU who should violate them. In the 
 subsequent years of the same reign, 
 other statutes were enacted to re-enforce 
 these statutes, and other rules pre- 
 scribed to seciire a compliance with 
 these rules. In this manner was the 
 trade to and from the Colonies re- 
 stricted, almost to the exclusive ad- 
 vantage of the parent country. But 
 laws, which rendered the interest of a 
 whole people subordinate to that of an- 
 other people, were not likely to execute 
 themselves; nor was it easy to find 
 many on the spot, who could be de- 
 
 1 In reference to the British policy respect- 
 infif Colonial manufactures, see Representations 
 of the Board of Trade to the House of Lords, 
 23d Jan., 1734; also, 8th June, 1749. For an 
 able vindication of the British Colonial policy, 
 see " Political Essays concerning the Present 
 State of the British Empire." London. ]772. 
 
88 
 
 riRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 pended upon for carrying them into 
 execution. In fact, these laws were 
 more or less evaded or resisted, in all 
 the Colonies. To enforce them was the 
 constant endeavor of the government at 
 home; to prevent or elude their opera- 
 tion, the perpetual object here. " The 
 laws of navigation," says a living Brit- 
 ish writer, "were nowhere so openly 
 disobeyed and contemned as in New 
 England." " The people of ^Nlassachu- 
 setts Bay," he adds, " were from the 
 first disposed to act as if independent 
 of the mother country, and having a 
 governor and magistrates of their own 
 choice, it was difficult to enforce any 
 regulation which came from the Eng- 
 lisli Parliament, adverse to their inter- 
 ests." To provide more effectually for 
 the execution of these laws, we know 
 that courts of admiralty were afterwards 
 established by the crown, with power to 
 try revenue causes, as questions of ad- 
 miralty, upon the construction given by 
 the crown lawyers to an act of Parlia- 
 ment; a great departure from the ordi- 
 nary principles of English jurispru- 
 dence, but which has been maintained, 
 nevertheless, by the force of habit and 
 precedent, and is adopted in our own 
 existing systems of government. 
 
 "There lie," says another English 
 wi'iter, whose connection with the Board 
 of Trade has enabled him to ascertain 
 many facts connected with Colonial his- 
 tory, " There lie among the documents 
 in the board of trade and state-paper 
 office, the most satisfactory proofs, from 
 the epoch of the English Revolution in 
 1688, throughout every reign, and dur- 
 ing every administration, of the settled 
 purpose of the Colonies to acquire direct 
 independence and positive sovereignty." 
 Perhaps this may be stated somewhat 
 too strongly; but it cannot be denied, 
 that, from the very nature of the estab- 
 lishments here, and from the general 
 character of the measures respecting 
 their concerns early adopted and stead- 
 ily pursued by the English government, 
 a division of the empire was the natural 
 and necessary result to which every 
 tliinsj tended.^ 
 
 1 Many interesting papers, illustrating the 
 
 I have dwelt on this topic, because it 
 seems to me, that the peculiar original 
 character of the Xew England Colonies, 
 and certain causes coeval with their ex- 
 istence, have had a strong and decided 
 influence on all their subsequent history, 
 and especially on the great event of the 
 Revolution. Whoever would write our 
 history, and would understand and ex- 
 plain early transactions, should compre- 
 hend the nature and force of the feeling 
 which I have endeavored to describe. 
 As a son, leaving the house of his father 
 for his own, finds, by the order of 
 nature, and the very law of his being, 
 nearer and dearer objects around which 
 his affections circle, while his attach- 
 ment to the parental roof becomes 
 moderated, by degrees, to a composed 
 regard and an affectionate remem- 
 brance; so our ancestors, leaving their 
 native land, not without some violence 
 to the feelings of nature and affection, 
 yet, in time, found here a new circle of 
 engagements, interests, and affections; 
 a feeling, which more and more en- 
 croached upon the old, till an imdivided 
 sentiment, that this was their country, 
 occupied the heart; and patriotism, 
 shutting out from its embraces the par- 
 ent realm, became local to America. 
 
 Some retrospect of the century which 
 has now elapsed is among the duties of 
 the occasion. It must, however, neces- 
 sarily be imperfect, to be compressed 
 within the limits of a single discourse. 
 I shall content myself, therefore, with 
 taking notice of a few of the leading 
 and most important occurrences which 
 have distinguished the period. 
 
 "\Mien the first century closed, the prog- 
 ress of the country appeared to have been 
 considerable ; notwithstanding that, in 
 comi<arison with its subsequent advance- 
 ment, it now seems otherwise. A broad 
 and lasting foundation had been laid; 
 excellent institutions had been estab- 
 lished ; many of the prejudices of former 
 times had been removed ; a more liberal 
 
 earlv history of the Colony, may be found in 
 Hutchinson's "Collection of Original Tapera 
 relating to the History of the Colony of Matea- 
 chusctts Bay." 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW E^ GLAND. 
 
 39 
 
 lUid catholic spirit on subjects of relig- 
 ious concern had begun to extend itself, 
 and many things con&pired to give prom- 
 ise of increasing future prosperity. Great 
 men had arisen in public life, and the 
 liberal professions. The Mathers, father 
 and son, were then sinking low in the 
 western horizon; Leverett, the learned, 
 the accomplished, the excellent Leverett, 
 tvas about to withdraw his brilliant and 
 useful light. In Pemberton great hopes 
 had been suddenly exting-uished, but 
 Prince and Cohnan were in our sky ; and 
 along the east had begun to flash the 
 crepuscular light of a great luminaiy 
 which was about to appear, and which 
 was to stamp the age with his own name, 
 as the age of Franklin. 
 
 The bloody Indian wars, which har- 
 assed the people for a part of the first 
 century; the restrictions on the trade of 
 tlie Colonies, added to the discourage- 
 ments inherently belonging to all forms 
 of colonial government ; the distance 
 from Europe, and the small hope of im- 
 mediate profit to adventurers, are among 
 the causes which had contributed to re- 
 tard the progress of population. Per- 
 haps it may be added, also, that during 
 the period of the civil wars in England, 
 and the reign of Cromwell, many per- 
 sons, whose religious opinions and re- 
 ligious temper might, under other cir- 
 cumstances, have induced them to join 
 the Xew England colonists, found rea- 
 Bons to remain in England; either on 
 account of active occupation in the scenes 
 which were passing, or of an anticipation 
 of the enjoyment, in their own country, 
 of a foim of government, civil and re- 
 ligious, accommodated to their views 
 and principles. The violent measures, 
 too, pursued against the Colonies in the 
 reign of Charles the Second, the mock- 
 ery of a trial, and the forfeiture of the 
 charters, were serious evils. And during 
 the open violences of the short reign of 
 James the Second, and the tyranny of An- 
 dros, as the venerable historian of Con- 
 necticut observes, "AU the motives to 
 great actions, to industry, economy, en- 
 terprise, wealth, and population, were in 
 a manner anniliilated. A general inac- 
 tivity and languishment pervaded the 
 
 public body. Liberty, propertj, and 
 every thing which ought to be dear to 
 men, every day grew more and more in- 
 secure." 
 
 With the Ee volution in England, a 
 better prospect had opened on this coun- 
 try, as well as on that. The joy had 
 been as great at that event, and far more 
 universal, in New than in Old England. 
 A new charter had been granted to Mas- 
 sachusetts, which, although it did not 
 confirm to her inhabitants all theu* for 
 mer privileges, yet relieved them from 
 great evils and embarrassments, and 
 promised future secui-ity. More than 
 all, perhaps, the Revolution in England 
 had done good to the general cause of 
 liberty and justice. A blow had been 
 struck in favor of the rights and liber- 
 ties, not of England alone, but of de- 
 scendants and kinsmen of England all 
 over the world. Great political truths 
 had been established. The champions 
 of liberty had been successful in a fear- 
 ful and perilous conflict. S6mers, and 
 Cavendish, and Jekyl, and Howard, had 
 triumphed in one of the most noble 
 causes ever undertaken by men. A revo- 
 lution had been made upon principle. -A 
 monarch had been dethroned for violat- 
 ing the original compact between king 
 and people. The rights of the people 
 to partake in the government, and to 
 limit the monarch by fundamental rules 
 of government, had been maintained; 
 and however unjust the government of 
 England might afterwards be towards 
 other governments or towards her colo- 
 nies, she had ceased to be governed her- 
 self by the arbitrary maxims of the 
 Stuarts. 
 
 Xew England had submitted to the 
 violence of James the Second not longer 
 than Old England. Not only was it re- 
 served to Massachusetts, that on her soil 
 should be acted the first scene of that 
 great revolutionary drama, which was to 
 take place near a century afterwards, but 
 the English Revolution itself, as far as 
 the Colonies were concerned, commenced 
 in Boston. The seizure and imprison- 
 ment of Andros, in April, 1689, were 
 acts of direct and forcible resistance to 
 the authority of James the Second. The 
 
40 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLANT). 
 
 pulse of liberty beat as high in the ex- 
 tremities as at the heart. The vigorous 
 feeling of the Colony burst out before it 
 was known how the j^arent country would 
 finally conduct herself. The king's rep- 
 resentative, Sir Edmund Andros, was a 
 prisoner in the castle at Boston, before 
 it was or could be known that the king 
 himself had ceased to exercise his full 
 dominion on the English throne. 
 
 Before it was known here whether the 
 invasion of the Prince of Orange would 
 or could prove successful, as soon as it 
 was known that it had been undertaken, 
 the people of Massachusetts, at the im- 
 minent hazard of their lives and fortunes, 
 had accomplished the Revolution as far 
 as respected themselves. It is probable 
 that, reasoning on general principles and 
 the known attachment of the English 
 people to their constitution and liberties, 
 and their deep and fixed dislike of the 
 king's religion and politics, the people 
 of New England expected a catastrophe 
 fatal to the power of the reigning prince. 
 Yet it was neither certain enough, nor 
 near enough, to come to their aid against 
 the authority of the crown, in that crisis 
 whicli had arrived, and in which they 
 trusted to put themselves, relying on God 
 and their own courage. There were spir- 
 its in Massachusetts congenial with the 
 spirits of the distinguished friends of 
 the Revolution in England. There were 
 those who were fit to associate with the 
 boldest asserters of civil liberty; and 
 Mather himself, then in England, was 
 not unworthy to be ranked with those 
 sons of the Churcli, whose firmness and 
 spirit in resisting kingly encroachments 
 in matters of religion, entitled them to 
 the gratitude 'of their own and succeed- 
 ing ages. 
 
 The second century opened upon New 
 Englaml under circixmstances which 
 evinced that much had already been ac- 
 vx»mplished, and that still better pros- 
 pects and brighter hopes were before 
 her. She had laid, deep and strong, the 
 foundations of her society. Her relig- 
 ioas principles were firm, and her moral 
 habits exemplary. Her public schools 
 had begun to diffuse widely the elements 
 of knowledge ; and the College, under 
 
 the excellent and acceptable administra- 
 tion of Leverett, had been raised to a 
 high degree of credit and usefulness. 
 
 The commercial character of the coun- 
 try, notwithstanding all discouragements, 
 had begun to display itself, and^re hun- 
 dred vessels, then belonging to Massa- 
 chusetts, placed her, in relation to com- 
 merce, thus early at the head of the 
 Colonies. An author who wrote very 
 near the close of the first century says : — 
 " New England is almost deserving that 
 nolle name, so mightily hath it increased ; 
 and from a small settlement at first, is 
 now become a very populous and fiouv' 
 is/ling government. The capital city, 
 Boston, is a place of great wealth and 
 trade ; and by much the largest of any 
 in the English empire of America; and 
 not exceeded but by few cities, perhaps 
 two or three, in all the American world. " 
 
 But if our ancestors at the close of the 
 first century could look back with joy 
 and even admiration, at the progress of 
 the country, what emotions must we not 
 feel, when, from the point on which we 
 stand, we also look back and run along 
 the events of the century which has 
 now closed ! The country which then, 
 as we have seen, was thought deserv- 
 ing of a "noble name," — which then 
 had " mightily increased," and become 
 "very populous," — what was it, in 
 comparison with what our eyes behold 
 it? At that period, a veiT great propor- 
 tion of its inhabitants lived in the east- 
 ern section of Massachusetts proper, and 
 in Plymouth Colony. In Connecticut, 
 there were towns along the coast, some 
 of them respectable, but in the interior 
 all was a wilderness beyond Hartford. 
 On Connecticut River, settlements had 
 proceeded as far up as Deerfield, and 
 Fort Dummer had been built near where 
 is now the south line of New Hamp- 
 shire. In New Hampshire no settle- 
 ment was then begun thirty miles from 
 the mouth of Piscataqua River, and in 
 what is now Maine the inhabitants were 
 confined to tiie coast. The aggregate of 
 the whole population of New England 
 did not exceed one hundred and sixty 
 thousand. Its present amount (18'20) 
 I is probably one million seven hundred 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 41 
 
 thousand. Instead of being confined 
 to its former limits, lier population has 
 rolled backward, and filled up the spaces 
 included within her actual local boun- 
 daries. Not this only, but it has over- 
 flowed those boundaries, and the waves 
 of emigration liave pressed farther and 
 farther toward the West. The Alleghany 
 has not checked it; the banks of the 
 Ohio have been covered with it. New 
 England farms, houses, villages, and 
 churches spread over and adorn the im- 
 mense extent from the Ohio to Lake Erie, 
 and stretch along from the Alleghany 
 onwards, beyond the Miamis, and toward 
 the Falls of St. Anthony. Two thousand 
 miles westward from the rock where 
 their fathers landed, may now be found 
 the sons of the Pilgruns, cultivating 
 smiling fields, rearing towns and vil- 
 lages, and cherishing, we trust, the pat- 
 rimonial blessings of wise institutions, 
 of liberty, and religion. The world has 
 seen nothing like this. Regions large 
 enough to be empires, and which, half a 
 century ago, were known only as remote 
 and unexplored wildernesses, are now 
 teeming with population, and prosperous 
 in all the great concerns of life ; in good 
 governments, the means of subsistence, 
 and social happiness. It may be safely 
 asserted, that there are now more than 
 a million of people, descendants of New 
 England ancestiy, living, free and hap- 
 py, in regions wh'ch scarce sixty years 
 ago were tracts of unpenetrated forest. 
 Nor do rivers, or mountains, or seas re- 
 sist the progress of industry and enter- 
 prise. Erelong, the sons of the Pilgrims 
 will be on the shores of the Pacific. ' The 
 imagination hardly keeps pace with the 
 progress of population, improvement, 
 and civilization. 
 
 It is now five-and-forty years since the 
 growth and rising glory of America were 
 portrayed in the English Parliament, 
 with inimitable beauty, by the most con- 
 sunmiate orator of modern times. Go- 
 ing back somewhat more than half a 
 century, and describing our progress as 
 
 1 In reference to the fulfilment of this pre- 
 diction, see Mr. Webster's Address at the Cele- 
 bration ot the New England Society of New 
 York, on the 23d of December, 1850. 
 
 foreseen from that point by his amiable 
 friend Lord Bathurst, then living, he 
 spoke of the wonderful progress which 
 America had made during the period of 
 a single human life. There is no Amer- 
 ican heart, I imagine, that does not 
 glow, both with conscious, patriotic 
 pride, and admiration for one of the 
 happiest efforts of eloquence, so often 
 as the vision of " that little speck, scarce 
 visible in the mass of national interest, 
 a small seminal principle, rather tlan a 
 formed body," and the progress of its 
 astonishing development and growth, 
 are recalled to the recollection. But a 
 stronger feeling might be produced, if 
 we were able to take up this prophetic 
 description where he left it, and, placing 
 ourselves at the point of time in which 
 he was speaking, to set forth with equal 
 felicity the subsequent progress of the 
 country. There is yet among the liv- 
 ing a most distinguished and venerable 
 name, a descendant of the Pilgrims; one 
 who has been attended through life by a 
 great and fortunate genius ; a man illus- 
 trious by his own great merits, and 
 favored of Heaven in the long continua- 
 tion of his years. 2 The time when the 
 English orator was thus speaking of 
 America preceded but by a few days 
 the actual opening of the revolutionary 
 drama at Lexington. He to whom I 
 have alluded, then at the age of forty, 
 was among the most zealous and able 
 defenders of the violated rights of his 
 country. He seemed already to have 
 filled a full measure of public service, 
 and attained an honorable fame. The 
 moment was full of difiiculty and dan- 
 ger, and bisj with events of immeasura- 
 ble importance. The country was on 
 the very brink of a civil war, of which 
 no man could foretell the duration or 
 the result. Something more than a 
 courageous hope, or characteristic ardor, 
 would have been necessary to impress 
 the glorious prospect on his belief, if, at 
 that moment, before the sound of the 
 first shock of actual war had reached his 
 ears, some attendant spirit had opened 
 
 2 John Adams, second President of the 
 Unitpd States 
 
4'J 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ESGLA^D. 
 
 to him the vision of the future ; — if it 
 had saifl to hun, " The blow is struck, 
 and America is severed from England 
 for ever!" — if it had informed him, 
 that he himself, dm-ing the next annual 
 revolution of the sun, should put his 
 own hand to the great instrument of in- 
 dependence, and write his name where 
 all na1ior.3 should behold it and all time 
 should not efface it; that erelong he 
 himself should maintain the interests 
 and represent the sovereignty of his new- 
 born country in the proudest courts of 
 Eui'ope ; that he should one day exercise 
 her supreme magistracy; that he should 
 yet live to behold ten millions of fellow- 
 citizens paying him the homage of their 
 deepest gi-atitude and kindest affections ; 
 that he should see distinguished talent 
 and high public trust resting where his 
 name rested; that he should even see 
 with his owTi unclouded eyes the close of 
 the second century of New England, 
 who had begun life almost wdth its com- 
 mencement, and lived through nearly 
 half the whole history of his countiy; 
 and that on the morning of this auspi- 
 cious day he should be found in the 
 political councils of his native State, re- 
 vising, by the light of experience, that 
 system of government which forty years 
 before he had assisted to frame and es- 
 tablish; and, gi-eat and happy as he 
 should then behold his coimtry, there 
 should be nothing in prosjiect to cloud 
 the scene, nothing to check the ardor of 
 tliat confident and patriotic hope which 
 should glow in his bosom to the end of 
 his long protracted and happy life. 
 
 It would far exceed the limits of this 
 discourse even to mention the principal 
 events in the civil and political history 
 of Xew England during the century ; the 
 more so, as for the last half of the 
 period that history has, most happily, 
 been closely interwoven with the general 
 history of the United States. Xew Eng- 
 land bore an honorable part in the wars 
 which took place between England and 
 France. The capture of Louisburg gave 
 her a character for military achieve- 
 ment; and in the war which terminated 
 with the peace of 1703, her exertions on 
 the frontiers were of most essential ser- 
 
 vice, as well to the mother country as to 
 all the Colonies. 
 
 In Xew England the war of the Rev- 
 olution commenced. I address those 
 who remember the memorable 19th of 
 April, 1775; who shortly after saw the 
 burning spires of Charlestown ; who be- 
 held the deeds of Prescott, and heard the 
 voice of Putnam amidst the storm of 
 war, and saw the generous "Warren fall, 
 the first distinguished -v-ictim in the 
 cause of liberty. It would be superflu- 
 ous to say, that no portion of the comi- 
 try did more than the States of New 
 England to bring the Revolutionary 
 struggle to a successful issue. It is 
 scarcely less to her credit, that she saw 
 early the necessity of a closer union of 
 the States, and gave an efficient and in- 
 dispensable aid to the establishment and 
 organization of the Federal government. 
 
 Perhaps we might safely say, that a 
 new spu'it and a new excitement began to 
 exist here about the middle of the last 
 century. To whatever causes it may 
 be imputed, there seems then to have 
 commenced a more rapid improvement. 
 The Colonies had attracted more of the 
 attention of the mother countiy, and 
 some reno^^'n in arms had been ac- 
 quired. Lord Chatham was the first 
 English minister who attached high im- 
 portance to these possessions of the 
 crown, and who foresaw any thing of 
 their future gi'owth and extension. His 
 opinion was, that the great rival of Eng- 
 land was chiefly to be feared as a mari- 
 time and commercial power, and to 
 drive her out of North America and de- 
 prive her of her West Indian possessions 
 was a leading object in his policy. He 
 dwelt often on the fisheries, as nurseries 
 for British seamen, and the colonial 
 trade, as furnishing them emplojTnent. 
 The war, conducted by him with so 
 much vigor, terminated in a peace, by 
 which Canada was ceded to England. 
 The effect of this was immediately visi- 
 ble in the New England Colonies; for, 
 the fear of Indian hostilities on the fron- 
 tiers being now happily removed, settle- 
 ments went on with an activity before 
 that time altogether unprecedented, and 
 I public affairs wore a new and eucour- 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 43 
 
 aging aspect. Shortly after this fortu- 
 nate termination of tlie French war, the 
 interesting topics connected -svith the 
 taxation of America by the British Par- 
 liament began to be discussed, and the 
 attention and all the faculties of the 
 people drawn towards them. There is 
 perhaps no portion of our histoiy more 
 full of interest than the period from 
 1760 to the actual commencement of the 
 •war. The progress of opinion in this 
 period, though less known, is not less 
 important than the progress of arms 
 afterwards. Nothing deserves more con- 
 sideration than those events and discus- 
 sions which affected the public sentiment 
 and settled the Revolution in men's 
 minds, before hostilities openly broke 
 out. 
 
 Internal improvement followed the es- 
 tablishment and prosperous commence- 
 ment of the present government. More 
 has been done for roads, canals, and 
 other public works, within the last thirty 
 years, than in all our former history. 
 In the first of these particulars, few 
 countries excel the New England States. 
 The astonishing increase of their navi- 
 gation and trade is known to every one, 
 and now belongs to the history of our 
 national wealth. 
 
 We may flatter ourselves, too, that 
 literature and taste have not been sta- 
 tionaiy, and that some advancement has 
 been made in the elegant, as well as in 
 the useful arts. 
 
 The nature and constitution of society 
 and government in this countiy are in- 
 teresting topics, to which I would de- 
 vote what remains of the time allowed 
 to this occasion. Of our system of gov- 
 ernment the first thing to be said is, that 
 it is really and practically a free system. 
 It originates entirely with the people, 
 and rests on no other foundation than 
 their assent. To judge of its actual op- 
 eration, it is not enough to look merely 
 at the form of its constniction. The 
 practical character of government de- 
 pends often on a variety of consider- 
 ations, besides the abstract fi"ame of 
 its constitutional organization. Among 
 tliese fire the condition and tenm-e of 
 
 property; the laws regulating its aliena- 
 tion and descent ; the presence or absence 
 of a military power ; an armed or unarmed 
 yeomanry; the spirit of the age, and the 
 degi-ee of general intelligence. In these 
 respects it cannot be denied that the cir- 
 cumstances of this country are most 
 favorable to the hope of maintaining the 
 government of a great nation on princi- 
 ples entirely popular. In tlie absence oi 
 military power, the nature of govern- 
 ment must essentially depend on the 
 manner in which propei'ty is holden and 
 distributed. There is a natural influ- 
 ence belonging to property, whether it 
 exists in many hands or few; and it is 
 on the rights of proj)erty that both des- 
 potism and unrestrained popular violence 
 ordinarily commence their attacks. Our 
 ancestors began their system of govern- 
 ment here imder a condition of compar- 
 ative equality in regard to wealth, and 
 their early laws were of a nature to favor 
 and continue this equality. 
 
 A republican form of government rests 
 not more on political constitutions, than 
 on those laws which regulate the descent 
 and transmission of property. Govern- 
 ments like ours could not have been 
 maintained, where property was holden 
 according to the principles of the feudal 
 system; nor, on the other hand, could 
 the feudal constitution possibly exist 
 with us. Our New England ancestors 
 brought hither no great capitals from 
 Europe; and if they had, there was 
 nothing productive in which they could 
 have been invested. They left behind 
 them the whole feudal policy of the 
 other contment. They broke away at 
 once from the system of military sen-ice 
 established in the Dark Ages, and which 
 continues, down even to the present 
 time, more or less to affect the conii- 
 tion of property all over Eiirope. They 
 came to a new countiy. There were, as 
 yet, no lands yielding rent, and no ten- 
 ants rendering sen'ice. The whole soil 
 was unreclaimed from barbarism. They 
 were themselves, either from their origi- 
 nal condition, or from the necessity of 
 their common interest, nearly on a gen- 
 eral level in respect to property. Their 
 situation demanded a parcelling out and 
 
u 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND 
 
 division of the lands, and it may be 
 fairly said, that this necessary act Jixed 
 the futur? frame and form of their gov- 
 ernment. The character of their politi- 
 cal institutions was determined by the 
 fundamental laws respecting property. 
 The laws rendered estates divisible 
 among sons and daughters. The right 
 of primogeniture, at first limited and 
 curtailed, was afterwards abolished. 
 The property was all freehold. The 
 entailment of estates, long trusts, and 
 the other processes for fettering and ty- 
 ing up inheritances, were not applicable 
 to the condition of society, and seldom 
 made use of. On the contrary, aliena- 
 tion of the land was every way facili- 
 tated, even to the subjecting of it to 
 every species of debt. The establish- 
 ment of pubUc registries, and the sim- 
 plicity of our forms of conveyance, have 
 greatly facilitated the change of real 
 estate from one proprietor to another. 
 The consequence of all these causes has 
 been a great subdivision of the soil, and 
 a great equality of condition; the true 
 basis, most certainly, of a popidar gov- 
 ernment. "If the people," says Har- 
 rington, " hold three parts in four of the 
 territory, it is plain there can neither 
 be any single person nor nobility able to 
 dispute the government with them; in 
 this case, therefore, except force be inter- 
 posed, they govern themselves." 
 
 The history of other nations may 
 teach us how favorable to public liberty 
 are the division of the soil into small 
 freeholds, and a system of laws, of which 
 the tendency is, without violence or in- 
 justice, to produce and to preserve a 
 degree of equality of property. It has 
 been estimated, if I mistake not, tliat 
 abo it the time of Henry the Seventh 
 four fifths of the land in England was 
 bolden by the great barons and ecclesi- 
 astics. The effects of a growing com- 
 merce soon afterwards began to break in 
 on this state of things, and before the 
 Revolution, in 1688, a vast change had 
 been wrought. It may be thought prob- 
 abls, that, for the last half-centurj', 
 the process of subdivision in England 
 has been retarded, if not reversed; that 
 tlie great weight of taxation has com- 
 
 pelled many of the lesser freeholders to 
 dispose of their estates, and to seek em- 
 plo}Tnent in the army and navy, in the 
 professions of civil life, in commerce, or 
 in the colonies. The effect of this on 
 the British constitution cannot but be 
 most unfavorable. A few large estates 
 grow larger; but the number of those 
 who have no estates also increases ; and 
 there may be danger, lest the inequality 
 of property become so great, that those 
 who possess it may be dispossessed by 
 force; in other words, that the govern- 
 ment may be overturned. 
 
 A most interesting experiment of the 
 effect of a subdivision of property on 
 government is now making in France. 
 It is understood, that the law regulat- 
 ing the transmission of property in that 
 country, now divides it, real and per- 
 sonal, among aU the children equally, 
 both sons and daughters ; and that there 
 is, also, a very gi-eat restraint on the 
 power of making dispositions of prop- 
 erty by will. It has been supposed, that 
 the effects of this might probably be, in 
 time, to break up the soil into such small 
 subdivisions, that the proprietoi-s would 
 be too poor to resist the encroachments 
 of executive power. I think far other- 
 wise. AVhat is lost in individual wealth 
 will be more than gained in numbers, in 
 intelligence, and in a sympathy of senti- 
 ment. If, indeed, only one or a few 
 landholders were to resist the crown, 
 like the barons of England, they must, 
 of course, be great and powerful land- 
 holders, with multitudes of retainers, to 
 promise success. But if the proprietors 
 of a given extent of territory are sum- 
 moned to resistance, there is no reason 
 to believe that such resistance would be 
 less forcible, or less successful, because 
 the number of such proprietors hai>j^iened 
 to be great. Each would i-)erceive his 
 own importance, and his own interest, 
 and would feel that natural elevation of 
 character which the consciousness of 
 property insi^ires. A common senti- 
 ment would unite all, and numbers 
 would not only add strength, but excite 
 enthusiasm. It is true, that France 
 possesses a vast military force, under 
 the direction of an hereditary executive 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLiVND. 
 
 45 
 
 gOTeriiment; and military power, it is 
 possible, may overthrow any govern- 
 ment. It is in vain, however, in this 
 period of the world, to look for security 
 against military power to the arm of the 
 great landliolders. That notion is de- 
 rived from a state of things long since 
 past; a state in which a feudal baron, 
 with his retainers, might stand against 
 the sovereign and his retainers, him- 
 Belf but the greatest baron. But at 
 present, what could the richest land- 
 holder do, against one regiment of dis- 
 ciplined troops? Other secm-ities, there- 
 fore, against the prevalence of military 
 power must be provided. Happily for 
 us, we are not so situated as that any 
 purpose of national defence requires, 
 ordinarily and constantly, such a mili- 
 tary force as might seriously endanger 
 our liberties. 
 
 Li respect, however, to the recent law 
 of succession in France, to which I have 
 alluded, I would, presumptuously per- 
 haps, hazard a conjecture, that, if the 
 government do not change the law, the 
 law in half a century will change the gov- 
 ernment; and that this change will be, 
 not in favor of the power of the crown, 
 as some European writers have supposed, 
 but against it. Those writers only rea- 
 son upon what they think correct general 
 principles, in relation to this subject. 
 They acknowledge a want of experience. 
 Here we have had that experience ; and 
 we know that a multitude of small pro- 
 prietors, acting with intelligence, and 
 that enthusiasm which a common cause 
 inspu-es, constitute not only a formida- 
 ble, but an invincible power, i 
 
 The true principle of a free and popu- 
 lar government would seem to be, so to 
 construct it as to give to all, or at least 
 to a very great majority, an interest in 
 its preservation; to found it, as other 
 things are founded, on men's interest. 
 The stability of government demands 
 that those who desire its continuance 
 should be more powerful than those who 
 desire its dissolution. This power, of 
 course, is not always to be measured by 
 mere numbers. Education, wealth, tal- 
 
 ^ See note B, at the end of the Discourse. 
 
 ents, are all parts and elements of the 
 general aggi-egate of power; but nura 
 bers, nevertheless, constitute ordinarily 
 the most important consideration, un- 
 less, indeed, there be a military force in 
 the hands of the few, by which they can 
 control tlie many. In this country we 
 have actually existing systems of gov- 
 ernment, in the maintenance of Mhich; 
 it should seem, a great majority, bott 
 in numbers and in other means of powei 
 and influence, must see their interest. 
 But this state of things is not brough* 
 about solely by written political consti- 
 tutions, or the biere manner of organiz- 
 ing the government; but also by the 
 laws which regulate the descent and 
 transmission of property. The freest 
 government, if it could exist, would 
 not be long acceptable, if the tendency 
 of the laws were to create a rapid accu- 
 mulation of property in few hands, and 
 to render the great mass of the popula- 
 tion dependent and penniless. In such 
 a case, the popular power would be likely 
 to break in upon the rights of property, 
 or else the influence of property to 
 limit and control the exercise of popular 
 power. Universal suffrage, for example, 
 could not long exist in a community 
 where there was gTeat inequality of 
 property. The holders of estates would 
 be obliged, in such case, in some way to 
 restrain the* right of suffrage, or else 
 such right of suffrage would, before 
 long, divide the property. In the na- 
 ture of things, those who have not prop- 
 erty, and see then- neighbors possess 
 much more than they think them to 
 need, cannot be favorable to laws made 
 for the protection ol property. "\Mien 
 this class becomes numerous, it grows 
 clamorous. It looks on property as its 
 prey and phmder, and is naturally ready, 
 at all times, for violence and revolution. 
 It would seem, then, to be the part of 
 political wisdom to found government 
 on property ; and to establish sucli dis- 
 tribution of property, by the laws which 
 regulate its transmission and alienation, 
 as to interest the great majority of soci- 
 ety in the support of the government. 
 This is, I imagine, the true theory and 
 the actual practice of our republican 
 
46 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 institutions. "With property divided as 
 we have it, no other government than 
 that of a republic could be maintained, 
 even were we foolish enough to desire 
 it. There is reason, therefore, to ex- 
 pect a long continuance of our system. 
 Party and passion, doubtless, may pre- 
 vail at times, and much temporary' mis- 
 chief be done. Even modes and forms 
 may be changed, and perhaps for the 
 worse. But a great revolution in re- 
 gard to property must take place, before 
 our governments can be moved from 
 their republican basis, unless they be 
 violently struck off by militar}'^ power. 
 The people possess the property, more 
 emphatically than it could ever be said 
 of the people of any other country, and 
 they can have no interest to overturn a 
 government which protects that property 
 by equal laws. 
 
 Let it not be supposed, that this state 
 of things possesses too strong tendencies 
 towards the production of a dead and 
 uninteresting level in society. Such 
 tendencies are sufficiently counteracted 
 by the infinite diversities in the charac- 
 ters and fortunes of individuals. Tal- 
 ent, activity, industry, and enterprise 
 tend at all times to produce inequality 
 and distinction; and there is room still 
 for the accumulation of wealth, with its 
 great advantages, to all reasonable and 
 useful extent. It has been often urged 
 against the state of society in America, 
 that it furnishes no class of men of for- 
 tune and leisure. This may be partly 
 true, but it is not entirely so, and the 
 evil, if it be one, would affect rather the 
 progress of taste and literature, than 
 the general prosperity of tiie people. 
 But the promotion of taste and litei-a- 
 turc cannot be primary objects of politi- 
 cal institutions; and if they could, it 
 might be doubted whether, in the long 
 course of things, as much is not gained 
 by a wide diffusion of general knowl- 
 edge, as is lost by diminishing the num- 
 ber of those who are enabled by fortune 
 and leisj ,3 to devote themselves exclu- 
 sivelj' to ocientific and literary pursuits. 
 However this may be, it is to be con- 
 sidered that it is the spirit of our system 
 to be equal and general, and if there be 
 
 particular disadvantages incident to this, 
 they are far more than counterbalanced 
 by the benefits which weigh against 
 them. The important concerns of soci- 
 ety are generally conducted, in all coun- 
 tries, by the men of business and practi- 
 cal ability ; and even in matters of taste 
 and literature, the advantages of mere 
 leisure are liable to be overrated. If 
 there exist adequate means of education 
 and a love of letters be excited, that 
 love will find its way to the object of its 
 desire, through the crowd and pressure 
 of the most busy society. 
 
 Connected with this division of prop- 
 erty, and the consequent participation 
 of the great mass of people in its pos- 
 session and enjoyments, is the sj'stem of 
 representation, which is admirably ac- 
 commodated to our condition, better 
 understood among us, and more famil- 
 iarly and extensively practised, in the 
 higher and in the lower departments of 
 government, than it has been by any 
 other people. Great facility has been 
 given to this in New England by the 
 early division of the country into town- 
 ships or small districts, in which all 
 concerns of local police are regulated, 
 and in which representatives to the leg- 
 islature are elected. Nothing can ex- 
 ceed the utility of these little bodies. 
 They are so many councils or parlia- 
 ments, in which common interests are 
 discussed, and useful knowledge ac- 
 quired and communicated. 
 
 The division of governments into de- 
 partments, and the division, again, of 
 the legislative department into two 
 chambers, are essential provisions in our 
 system. This last, although not new in 
 itself, yet seems to be new in its appli- 
 cation to governments wholly popular. 
 The Grecian republics, it is plain, knew 
 nothing of it; and in Rome, the check 
 and balance of legislative power, such 
 as it was, lay between the people and 
 the senate. Indeed, few^ things are 
 more difficult than to ascertain accu- 
 rately the true nature and construction 
 of the Roman commonwealth. The 
 relative power of the senate and the peo- 
 ple, of the consuls and the tribunes, 
 appears not to have been at all times 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND 
 
 47 
 
 the same, nor at any time accurately 
 defined or strictly observed. Cicero, 
 indeed, describes to us an admirable 
 arrangement of political power, and a 
 balance of the constitution, in tliat 
 beautiful passage, in which he compares 
 the democracies of Greece with the 
 Roman commonwealth. "O morem 
 preclarum, disciplinamque, quara a 
 majoribus accepimus, si quidem tonere- 
 musl sed nescio quo pacto jam do mani- 
 bus elabitur. NuUam euim illi nostri 
 Bapientissirai et sanctissimi viri vim 
 concionis esse voluerunt, quaj scisseret 
 plebs, aut quae populus juberet; sum- 
 mota concione, distributis partibus, 
 tributim et centuriatim descriptisordini- 
 bus, classibus, ajtatibus, auditis auctori- 
 bus, re multos dies promulgata et cognita, 
 juberi vetarique voluerunt. Graecorura 
 autem totaj respublic?e sedentis concio- 
 nis temeritate adininistrantur." ^ 
 
 But at what time this wise system 
 existed in this perfection at Rome, no 
 proofs remain to show. Her constitu- 
 tion, originally framed for a monarchy, 
 never seemed to be adjusted in its sev- 
 eral parts after the expulsion of the 
 kings. Liberty there was, but it was a 
 disputatious, an uncertain, an ill-secured 
 liberty. The patrician and plebeian 
 orders, instead of being matched and 
 joined, each in its just place and propor- 
 tion, to sustain the fabric of the state, 
 ■U'ere rather like hostile powers, in per- 
 petual conflict. With us, an attempt 
 has been made, and so far not without 
 success, to divide representation into 
 chambers, and, by difference of age, 
 character, qualification, or mode of elec- 
 tion, to establish salutaiy checks, in 
 governments altogether elective. 
 
 Having detained you so long with 
 these observations, I must yet advert to 
 another most interesting topic, — the 
 Free Schools. In this particular, New 
 England may be allowed to claim, I 
 think, a merit of a pecidiar character. 
 She early adopted, and has constantly 
 maintained the principle, that it is the 
 undoubted right and the bounden duty 
 
 1 Oratio pro Flacco, § 7. 
 
 of government to provide for tae in- 
 struction of all youth. That which is 
 elsewhere left to chance or to charity, 
 we secure by law.'^ For the purpose of 
 public instruction, we hold every man 
 subject to taxation in proportion to his 
 property, and we look not to the ques- 
 tion, whether he himself have, or have 
 not, children to be benefited by the edu- 
 cation for which he pays. AVe regard 
 it as a wise and liberal system of police, 
 by which property, and life, and the 
 peace of society are secured. We seek 
 to prevent in some measure the exten- 
 sion of the penal code, by inspiring a 
 salutary and conservative principle of 
 virtue and of knowledge in an early age. 
 We strive to excite a feeling of respect- 
 ability, and a sense of character, by 
 enlarging the capacity and increasing 
 the sphere of intellectual enjojTuent. 
 By general instruction, we seek, as far 
 as possible, to purify the whole moral 
 atmosphere; to keep good sentiments 
 uppermost, and to turn the strong cur- 
 rent of feeling and opinion, as well as 
 the censures of the law and the denun- 
 ciations of religion, against immorality 
 and crime. We hope for a security 
 beyond the law, and above the law, in 
 the prevalence of an enlightened and 
 well-principled moral sentiment. We 
 hope to continue and prolong the time, 
 when, in the villages and farm-houses 
 of New England, there may be undis- 
 turbed sleep within unbarred doors. 
 And knowing that our government rests 
 directly on the public will, in order that 
 we may preserve it we endeavor to give 
 a safe and proper direction to that pub- 
 lic will. We do not, indeed, expect all 
 men to be philosophers or statesmen; 
 
 2 The first free school established by law in 
 the Plymouth Colony was in 1670-72. One of 
 the early teachers in Boston taught school more 
 than sevtnty years. See Cotton blather's " Fu- 
 neral Sermon upon Mr. Ezekiel Cheevcr, the 
 ancient and honorable Master of the Free School 
 in Boston." 
 
 For the impression made upon the mind of 
 an intelligent foreigner by the general attention 
 to popular education, as characteristic of the 
 AnuTican polity, see Slackay's Weilern World, 
 Vol. III. p. 22.3 at seq. Also, Edinburgh Kfr- 
 view, No. 186. 
 
48 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLANT). 
 
 but we confidently trust, and our ex- 
 pectation of the duration of our system 
 of government rests on that trust, that, 
 by the diffusion of general knowledge 
 and good and virtuous sentiments, the 
 political fabric may be secure, as well 
 against open violence and overthrow, as 
 against the slow, but sure, undermining 
 of licentiousness. 
 
 We know that, at the present time, 
 an attempt is making in the English 
 Parliament to provide by law for the 
 education of the poor, and that a gen- 
 tleman of distinguished character (Mr. 
 Brougham) has taken the lead in pre- 
 senting a plan to government for carry- 
 ing that purpose into effect. And yet, 
 although the representatives of the three 
 kingdoms listened to him with astonish- 
 ment as well as delight, we hear no 
 principles with which we ourselves have 
 not been familiar from youth; we see 
 nothing in the plan but an approach 
 towards that system which has been es- 
 tablished in New England for more 
 than a century and a half. It is said 
 that in England not more than one child 
 in fifteen possesses the means of being 
 taught to read and write; in Wales, one 
 in twenty ; in France, until lately, when 
 some improvement was made, not more 
 than one in thirty-foe . Now, it is hardly 
 too strong to say, that in New England 
 every ch ild possesses such means. It would 
 be difficult to find an instance to the con- 
 trary, unless where it should be owing 
 to the negligence of the parent; and, in 
 truth, the means are actually used and 
 enjoyed by nearly eveiy one. A youth 
 of fifteen, of either sex, who cannot 
 both read and write, is very seldom to 
 be found. Who can make this compari- 
 son, or contemplate this spectacle, with- 
 out delight and a feeling of just prideV 
 Does any history show property more 
 beneficently applied? Did any govern- 
 ment ever subject the property of those 
 who have estates to a burden, for a piu-- 
 pose more favorable to the poor, or more 
 useful to the whole community ? 
 
 A conviction of the importance of pub- 
 lic instruction was one of the earliest 
 eenfunents of our ancestors. No law- 
 giver of ancient or modern times has ex- 
 
 pressed more just opinions, or adopted 
 wiser measures, than the early records 
 of the Colony of Plymouth show to have 
 prevailed here. Assembled on this very 
 spot, a hundred and fifty-three years ago, 
 the legislature of this Colony declared, 
 " Forasmuch as the maintenance of good 
 literature doth much tend to the advance- 
 ment of the weal and flourishing state of 
 societies and republics, this Court doth 
 therefore order, that in whatever town- 
 ship in this government, consisting of 
 fifty families or upwards, any meet man 
 shall be obtained to teach a grammar 
 school, such township shall allow at least 
 twelve pounds, to be raised by rate on 
 all the inhabitants." 
 
 Having provided that all youth should 
 be instructed in the elements of learning 
 by the institution of free schools, our 
 ancestors had yet another duty to per- 
 form. Men were to be educated for the 
 professions and the public. For this 
 purpose they founded the University, 
 and with incredible zeal and persever- 
 ance they cherished and supported it, 
 through all trials and discouragements.^ 
 On the subject of the University, it is 
 not possible for a son of New England 
 to think without pleasure, or to speak 
 without emotion. Nothing confers more 
 honor on the State where it is estab- 
 lished, or more utility on the countiT at 
 large. A respectable university is an 
 establishment which must be the work 
 of time. If pecuniary means were not 
 wanting, no new institution could pos- 
 sess character and respectability at once. 
 We owe deep obligation to our ances- 
 tors, who began, almost on the moment 
 of their arrival, the work of building 
 up this institution. 
 
 Altliough established in a different 
 government, the Colony of Plymouth 
 manifested warm friendship for Har- 
 vard College. At an early period, its 
 government took measures to promote a 
 
 1 By a law of the Colony of Massachusette 
 Bay, passed as early as 1647, it was ordered, 
 that, "when any town shall increase to tha 
 number of one hundred families or household- 
 ers, they shall set up a grammar school, tho 
 master thereof bfiiig able to instruct youth so 
 far as they may be fitted for the University." 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 49 
 
 general subscription throughout all the 
 towns in this Colony, in aid of its small 
 funds. Other colleges were subsequently 
 founded and endowed, in other places, 
 as the ability of the people allowed ; and 
 we may flatter ourselves, that the means 
 of education at present enjoyed in Xew 
 England are not only adequate to the 
 diffusion of the elements of knowledge 
 among all classes, but sufficient also for 
 respectable attainments in literature and 
 the sciences. 
 
 Lastly, our ancestors established their 
 system of government on morality and 
 religious sentiment. Moral habits, they 
 believed, cannot safely be trusted on any 
 other foundation than religious princi- 
 ple, nor any government be secure which 
 is not supported by moral habits. Liv- 
 ing under the heavenly light of revela- 
 tion, they hoped to find all the social 
 dispositions, all the duties which men 
 owe to each other and to society, en- 
 forced and performed. Whatever makes 
 men good Christians, makes them good 
 citizens. Ovir fathers came here to en- 
 joy their religion free and unmolested; 
 and, at the end of two centuries, there 
 is nothing upon which we can pronounce 
 more confidently, nothing of which we 
 can express a more deep and earnest con- 
 viction, than of the inestimable import- 
 ance of that religion to man, both in re- 
 gard to this life and that wliich is to come. 
 
 If the blessings of oui- political and 
 social condition have not been too highly 
 estimated, we cannot well overrate the 
 responsibility and duty which they im- 
 pose upon us. We hold these institu- 
 tions of government, religion, and learn- 
 ing, to be transmitted, as well as enjoyed. 
 We are in the line of conveyance, through 
 which whatever has been obtained by the 
 spirit and efforts of our ancestors is to be 
 communicated to our children. 
 
 We are bound to maintain public lib- 
 erty, anl, by the example of our own 
 systems, to convince the world that or- 
 der and law, religion and morality, the 
 rights of conscience, the rights of per- 
 sons, and the rights of property, may all 
 be preserved and secured, in the most 
 perfect manner, by a government en- 
 
 (, 
 
 tirely and purely elective. If we fail in 
 this, our disaster will be signal, and will 
 furnish an argument, stronger than has 
 yet been found, in support of those opin- 
 ions which maintain that government 
 can rest safely on nothing but power 
 and coercion. As far as experience may 
 show errors in our establishments, we 
 are bound to correct them; and if any 
 practices exist contrary to the principles 
 of justice and humanity within the reach 
 of our laws or our influence, we are in- 
 excusable if we do not exert ourselves to 
 restrain and abolish them. 
 
 I deem it my duty on this occasion to 
 suggest, that the land is not yet wholly 
 free from the contamination of a traffic, 
 at whicli every feeling of humanity must 
 for ever revolt, — I mean the African 
 slave-trade.^ Neither public sentiment, 
 nor the law, has hitherto been able en- 
 tirely to put an end to this odious and 
 abominable trade. At the moment when 
 God in his mercy has blessed the Chris- 
 tian world with a universal peace, there 
 is reason to fear, that, to the disgrace of 
 the Christian name and character, new 
 efforts are making for the extension of 
 this trade by subjects and citizens of 
 Christian states, in whose hearts there 
 dwell no sentiments of humanity or of 
 justice, and over whom neither the fear 
 of God nor the fear of man exercises a 
 control. In the sight of our law, the 
 African slave-trader is a pirate and a 
 felon; and in the sight of Heaven, an 
 offender far beyond the ordinary depth 
 of human guilt. There is no brighter 
 page of our history, than that which 
 records the measures which have been 
 adopted by the government at an early 
 day, and at different times since, for the 
 suppression of this traffic ; and I would 
 call on all the true sons of New Englai d 
 to co-operate with the laws of man, and 
 the justice of Heaven. If there be, with- 
 in the extent of our knowledge or influ- 
 ence, any participation in this traffic, let 
 us pledge ourselves here, upon the rock 
 of Plymouth, to extirpate aftd destroy it. 
 
 1 In reference to the opposition of the Colo- 
 nies to the slave-trade, see a representation of 
 the Board of Trade to the Hoiw«» of Lords, 23d 
 January, 1733-4. 
 
50 
 
 flUST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 It is not fit that the land of the Pilgrims 
 should bear the shame longer. I hear 
 the sound of the hammer, I see the 
 smoke of the furnaces where manacles 
 and fettere are still forged for human 
 limbs. I see the visages of those who 
 by stealth and at midnight labor in this 
 work of hell, foul and dark, as may be- 
 come the artificers of such instruments 
 of misery and torture. Let that spot be 
 purified, or let it cease to be of Xew 
 England. Let it be purified, or let it be 
 set aside from the Christian world; let 
 it be put out of the circle of human sym- 
 pathies and human regards, and let civil- 
 ized man henceforth have no communion 
 with it. 
 
 I would invoke those who fill the seats 
 of justice, and all who minister at her 
 altar, that they execute the wholesome 
 and necessary severity of the law. I in- 
 voke the ministers of our religion, that 
 they proclaim its denunciation of these 
 crimes, and add its solemn sanctions to 
 the authority of human laws. Lf the 
 pulpit be silent whenever or wherever 
 there may be a sinner bloody with this 
 guilt within the hearing of its voice, 
 the pulpit is false to its trust. I call on 
 the fair merchant, who has reaped his 
 harvest upon the seas, that he assist 
 in scourging from those seas the worst 
 pirates that ever infested them. That 
 ocean, which seems to wave with a gen- 
 tle magnificence to waft the burden of 
 an honest commerce, and to roll along 
 its treasures with a conscious pride, — 
 that ocean, which hardy industry re- 
 gards, even when the winds have ruffled 
 its surface, as a field of grateful toil. — 
 what is it to the victim of this oppres- 
 eion , when he is brought to its shores, 
 and looks forth upon it, for the first 
 tini", loaded with chains, and bleeding 
 witli stripes? What is it to him but a 
 wide-spread prospect of suffering, an- 
 guish, and death? Nor do the skies 
 smile longer, nor is the air longer fra- 
 grant to him. The sim is cast down 
 from heaven. An inhuman and accur.'sed 
 tratlic hai cut him off in his manhood, 
 or in his youth, from every enjoyment 
 belonging to his being, and every bless- 
 ing wiiich his Creator intended for him. 
 
 The Christian commvmities send forth 
 their emissaries of religion and letters, 
 who stop, here and there, along the coast 
 of the vast continent of Africa, and with 
 painful and tedious efforts make some 
 almost imperceptible progress in the 
 communication of knowledge, and in 
 the general improvement of (he natives 
 who are immediately about them. Not 
 thus slow and imperceptible is the trans 
 mission of the vices and bad passion.s 
 which the subjects of Christian states 
 carry to the land. The slave-trade hav- 
 ing touched the coast, its influence and 
 its evils spread, like a pestilence, over 
 the whole continent, making savage 
 wars more savage and more frequent, 
 and adding new and fierce passions to 
 the contests of barbarians. 
 
 I pursue this topic no further, except 
 again to say, that all Christendom, being 
 now blessed with peace, is bound by 
 eveiy thing which belongs to its char- 
 acter, and to the character of the pres- 
 ent age, to put a stop to this inhuman 
 and disgraceful traffic. 
 
 We are bound, not only to maintain 
 the general principles of public liberty, 
 but to support also those existing forma 
 of government which have so well se- 
 cured its enjojnuent, and so highly pro- 
 moted the public pro.sperity. It is now 
 more than thirty years that these States 
 have been united under the Federal Con- 
 stitution, and whatever fortime may 
 await them hereafter, it is impossible 
 that this period of their history should 
 not be regarded as distinguished by 
 signal prosperity and success. They 
 must be sanguine indeed, who can hope 
 for benefit from change. "\Miatever 
 division of the public judgment may 
 have existed in relation to particidar 
 measures of the government, all must 
 agree, one should think, in the opinion, 
 that in its general course it has been 
 eminently productive of public happi- 
 ness. Its most ardent friends could not 
 well have hoped from it more than it 
 has accomplished; and those who dis- 
 believed or doubted ought to feel less 
 concern about predictions which the 
 event has not verified, than pleasure in 
 the good which has been obtained. 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 51 
 
 Whoever shall hereafter WTite this part 
 of oiir history, although he may see oc- 
 casional errors or defects, will be able 
 to record no great failure iu the ends 
 and objects of government. Still less 
 will he be able to record any series of 
 lawless and despotic acts, or any success- 
 ful usurpation. His page will contain 
 no exlaibition of provinces depopulated, 
 of ci\nl authority habitually tranipled 
 down by military power, or of a com- 
 munity crushed by the burden of taxa- 
 tion. He will speak, rather, of public 
 liberty protected, and public happiness 
 advanced; of increased revenue, and 
 population augmented beyond all exam- 
 ple; of the gi-o\rth of commerce, manu- 
 factures, and the arts; and of that happy 
 condition, in which the restraint and co- 
 ercion of government are almost in\'isible 
 and imperceptible, and its influence felt 
 only in the benefits which it confers. 
 We can entertain no better wish for our 
 country, than that this government may 
 be preserved; nor have a clearer duty 
 than to maintain and support it in the 
 full exercise of all its just constitutional 
 powers. 
 
 The cause of science and literature 
 also imposes upon us an important and 
 delicate tnist. The wealth and popu- 
 lation of the countiy are now so far 
 advanced, as to authorize the exepctation 
 of a correct literature and a well formed 
 taste, as well as respectable progress in 
 the abstruse sciences. The coimtry has 
 risen from a state of colonial subjection ; 
 it has established an independent gov- 
 ernment, and is now in the undisturbed 
 enjoyment of peace and political security. 
 The elements of knowledge are univer- 
 sally dift'used, and the reading portion 
 of the community is large. Let us hope 
 that the present may be an auspicious 
 era of literature. If, almost on the day 
 of their landing, our ancestors founded 
 schools and endowed colleges, what obli- 
 gations do not rest upon us, living under 
 circumstances so much more favorable 
 both for providing and for using the 
 means of education? Literature be- 
 comes free institutions. It is the grace- 
 ful ornament of civil liberty, and a 
 happy restraint on the asperities which 
 
 political controversies sometimes occa- 
 sion. Just taste is not only an embel- 
 lishment of society, but it rises almost 
 to the rank of the virtues, and diffuses 
 positive good throughout the whole ex- 
 tent of its influence. There is a con- 
 nection between right feeling and right 
 principles, and truth in taste is allied 
 with truth in morality. With nothing 
 in our past history to discourage us, and 
 with something in our present condition 
 and prospects to animate us, let us hope, 
 that, as it is our fortune to live iu an 
 age when we may behold a wonderful 
 advancement of the country in all its 
 other great interests, we may see also 
 equal progress and success attend the 
 cause of letters. 
 
 Finally, let us not forget the religious 
 character of oiir origin. Our fathers 
 were brought hither by their high vener- 
 ation for the Christian religion. They 
 journeyed by its light, and labored in its 
 hope. They sought to incorporate its 
 principles with the elements of their 
 society, and to diffuse its influence 
 through aU their institutions, civil, po- 
 litical, or literary. Let us cherish these 
 sentiments, and extend this influence 
 still more widely; in the full conviction, / 
 that that is the happiest society which ( 
 partakes in the highest degree of the 
 mild and peaceful spirit of Christianity. 
 
 The hours of this day are rapidly 
 flying, and this occasion will soon be 
 passed. Neither we nor our childi-en 
 can expect to behold its return. They 
 are in the distant regions of futurity, 
 they exist only in the all-creating power 
 of God, who shall stand here a hundred 
 years hence, to trace, through us, their 
 descent from the Pilgrims, and to sur- 
 vey, as we have now surveyed, the prog- 
 ress of theu- country, during the lapse 
 of a centmy. We would anticipate their 
 concurrence with us in our sentiments of 
 deep regard for our common ancestors. 
 We would anticipate and partake the 
 pleasure with which they will then re- 
 count the steps of Xew England's ad- 
 vancement. On the morning of that 
 day, although it will not distm'b us in 
 our repose, the voice of acclamatiou 
 and gratitude, commencing on the Rock 
 
52 
 
 FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 of Plymouth, shall be transmitted 
 through millions of the sons of the 
 Pilgrims, till it lose itself in the mur- 
 murs of the Paciiic seas. 
 
 We would leave for the consideration 
 of those who shall then occupy our 
 places, some proof that we hold the 
 blessings transmitted from our fathers 
 in just estimation; some proof of our 
 attachment to the cause of good govern- 
 ment, and of civil and religious liberty; 
 some proof of a sincere and ardent de- 
 sire to promote every thing which may 
 enlarge the understandings and improve 
 the hearts of men. And when, from 
 the long distance of a himdred years, 
 they shall look back upon us, they shall 
 know, at least, that we possessed affec- 
 tions, which, running backward and 
 warming with gratitude for what our 
 ancestors have done for our happiness, 
 run forward also to our posterity, and 
 meet them with cordial salutation, ere yet 
 tliey have arrived on the shore of being. 
 
 Advance, then, ye future generations 
 We would liail you, as you rise in your 
 long succession, to fill the places which 
 we now lill, and to taste the blessings of 
 existence where we are passing, and soon 
 shall have passed, our own human dura- 
 tion. "SVe bid you welcome to this 
 pleasant land of the fathers. AVe bid 
 you welcome to the healthful skies and 
 the verdant fields of New England. We 
 greet your accession to the great in- 
 heritance which we have enjoyed. We 
 welcome you to the blessings of good 
 government and religious liberty. We 
 welcome you to the ti-easures of science 
 and the delights of learning. We wel- 
 come you to the transcendent sweets of 
 domestic life, to the happiness of kin- 
 dred, and parents, and children. We 
 welcome you to the immeasurable bless- 
 ings of rational existence, the immoilaJ 
 hope of Christianity, and the light c'- 
 everlastiug truth! ■' 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 Note A. — Page 27. 
 
 The allusion in the Discourse is to the 
 lar^e historical painting of the Landing 
 of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, executed by 
 Ilcury Sargent, Esq., of Boston, and, with 
 gnat liberality, presented by him to the 
 J'iliirim Society. It appeared in their hall 
 (of which it forms the chief ornament) for 
 the lirst time at the celebration of 1824. It 
 represents the principal personages of the 
 company at the moment of landing, with 
 the Indian Samoset, who approaches them 
 witli a friendly welcome. A very competent 
 judL-e, himseif a distinguished artist, the 
 late" venerable Colonel Trumbull, has pru- 
 nouiieed that this painting has great inerit^ 
 An interesting aceount of it will be touiul 
 in Dr. Thaeh'er's History of I'lymoutli, pp. 
 240 and 257. ^ ^ . 
 
 An historical painting, by Robert N. AA eir, 
 Esq., of tiie largest size, representing the 
 embarkation of the Pilgrims from Delft- 
 llaveii, in Holland, and executed by order 
 of Congress, tills one of the jianels of the 
 Rotunda of tlie Cajiitol at Washington. The 
 moment ehosen by tlie artist for the action 
 of the picture is tliat in whieli the venerable 
 
 pastor Robinson, with tears, and benedic- 
 tions, and prayers to Heaven, dismisses the 
 beloved members of his little Hock to the 
 perils and the hopes of their great enter 
 prise. The characters of the personages 
 introduced are indicated with discrimina 
 tion and power, and the accessories of the 
 work marked with much taste and skill. It 
 is a painting of distinguished historical in 
 terest and of great artistic merit. 
 
 The " Landing of the Pilgrims " has also 
 been made the subject of a very interesting 
 painting by Mr. Plagg, intended to repre- 
 sent tiic deep religious feeling which so 
 strikinglv characterized the first fcttlers of 
 New Kniiland. Witii this object in view, 
 the central figure is that of Elder Brewster. 
 It is a ])icture of cabinet size, and is in pos- 
 session of a gentleman of New Haven, de- 
 scended from Elder Brewster, and of that 
 name. 
 
 Note B. — Pack 45. 
 
 As the opinion of contemporaneous think- 
 ers on this inii)ortant subject cannot fail 
 to interest the general rea<ler, it is deemed 
 proptr to insert here :he following extract 
 
FIRST SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 53 
 
 from a letter, written in 1849, to show how 
 powerfully tiie truths uttered in 1820, in 
 the spirit of prophecy, as it were, impressed 
 tlienisclves upon certain minds, and how 
 closely the verification of the prediction has 
 been watched. 
 
 "I do not remember any political prophecy, 
 founded on the spirit of a wide and fiir-rciu'liini^ 
 statesnuinsliip, tiiat has heoii so romariialjly I'ul- 
 filied as the one made by Mr. Webster, in iiis 
 Discourse delivered at I'lyniinitii in 18-21), on the 
 effect which the laws of succession to ])nipi;rty 
 in France, then in operation, would be likely to 
 produce on the forms and workintc of tlie French 
 government. But to understand what he said, 
 and what he foresaw, 1 must explain a little 
 what had been the course of legislation iu France 
 on which his predictions were founded. 
 
 "Betbre the Kevolution of 178H, there had 
 been a great accumulation of the landed prop- 
 erty of the country, and, indeed, of all its prop- 
 erty, — by means" of laws of entail, mi'jurats, 
 and other legal contrivances, — in the iiands of 
 the jirivileged classes; chiefly in those of the no- 
 bility and the clergy. The injury and injustice 
 done by long continued legislation iu this direc- 
 tion were obviously great; and it was not, per- 
 haps, unnatural, that the opposite course to that 
 which had brongiit on the mischief should be 
 deemed the best one to cure it. At any rate, 
 such was the course taken. 
 
 " In 171)1 a law was passed, preventing any 
 man from having any interest beyond the jieriod 
 of his own life in any of his property, real, per- 
 sonal, or mixed, and distributing all his posses- 
 sions for him, innnediately after his death, among 
 his children, in equal shares, or if he left no chil- 
 dren, then among his next of kin, on the same 
 principle. This law, with a slight moditica- 
 tion, made under the influence of Robespierre, 
 was in force till 1800. But the period was en- 
 tirely revolutionary, and probably quite as much 
 property changed hands from violence and the 
 consequences ot violence, during the nine years 
 it continued, as was transmitted b}' the laws 
 that directly controlled its succession. 
 
 " With the coming in of Bonaparte, however, 
 there was establisheil a new order of things, 
 which has continued, with little modification, 
 ever since, and has had its full share in working 
 out the great changes in French society which 
 we now witness. A few experiments were first 
 made, and then the great Civil Code, often called 
 the Code Knpoleon, was adopted. This was in 
 1804. By this remarkable code, which is still 
 in force, a man, if he has but one child, can give 
 away by his last will, as he pleases, half of his 
 property, — the law insuring the other half to 
 the child; if he has two children, then he can 
 so give away only one third, — the law requir- 
 ing the other twd thirds to be given equally to 
 the two children; if three, then only one fourth 
 under similar couditi >ns ; but if he has a greater 
 number, it restricts the rights of the parent more 
 and more, and makes it more and more diflicult 
 for bini to distribute his property according to 
 his own judgment ; the restrictions embarrassing 
 him even in his lifetime. 
 
 "The conseipiences of such laws are, from 
 their nature, very slowly developed. \\'hen .Mr. 
 Webster spoke "in 182()', the French code had 
 been in operation sixteen years, and similar 
 principlej had prevai'ed for nearly a genera- 
 
 tion. But still its wide re.sults were not even 
 suspected. Those who had treated the subject 
 at all supposed that the teiulency was to break 
 up the great estaies in France, and make the 
 larger number of the holders of small estates 
 more accessible to the influence of the govern- 
 ment, then a limited numarchy, and so render 
 it stronger and more desimtic. 
 
 "Mr. Webster held a different opinion. He 
 said, 'In respect, however, to the recent law of 
 succession in Fraiu-e, to which I have alluded, 
 / ivoidcl, presumpliioufli/ perhaps, liaznrd a con- 
 jecture, (hat, if the (jorvrnment do not chantje 
 the law, the law in half a century wll chant/t 
 the fjovernment ; and that this chumje will o*, 
 not tn favor (f the power of the crown, as soma 
 European writers have supposed, but against 
 it. Those writers only reason upon what they 
 think correct general principles, in relation to 
 this subject. They acknowledge a want of 
 experience. Here we have had that experi- 
 ence; and we know that a multitude of siiuill 
 projirietors, acting with intelligence, and that 
 enthusiasm which a common cause inspires, 
 constitute not only a formidable, but an in- 
 vincible power.' 
 
 " In less than six years after Mr. Webstsr 
 uttered this remarkable prediction, the king of 
 France himself, at the opening of the Legislative 
 Chambers, thus strangely echoed it: — 'Legis- 
 lation ought to provide, by successive improve- 
 ments, for all the wants of society. The pro- 
 gressive partitioning of landed estates, essen- 
 tially contrary to the spirit of a monarchical 
 government, would enfeeble the guaranties 
 which the charter has given to my throne and 
 to my subjects. Measures will be proposed to 
 you, gentlemen, to establish the consistency 
 which ought to e.xist between the political law 
 and the civil law, and to preserve the patri- 
 mony of families, without restricting the liberty 
 of disposing of one's property. The presen-a- 
 tion of families is connected with, and affords a 
 guarantv to, political stability, whi( h is the first 
 want ot' states, and which is especially that of 
 France, after so many vicissitudes.' 
 
 "Still, the results'to which such subdivision 
 and comminution of property tended were not 
 foreseen even in France. The Kevolution of 
 I8'i0 came, and revealed a part of them; for 
 that revolution was made by the influence of 
 men possessing very moderate estates, who be- 
 lieved that the guaranties of a government like 
 that of the elder branch of the Bourbons were 
 not sufikient for their safety. But when the 
 revolution was made, and the younger branch 
 of the Bourbons reigned instead of the elder, 
 the laws for the descent of property continued 
 to be the same, and the subdivision went on as 
 if it were an admitted benefit to society 
 
 "In consequence of this, in 1844 it was found 
 that there were in France at least live millions 
 and a half of families, or about twenty-seven 
 millions of souls, who were proprietary families, 
 and that of these about four millions of families 
 had each less than nine English acres to the 
 family on the average. Of course, a vast ma- 
 joritvof these twentv-seven millions of persons, 
 though they might he interested in some small 
 portion of the soil, were really poor, and multi- 
 tudes of them were dependent. 
 
 " Now, therefore, the results began to appeal 
 in a practical form. One third of all the rental 
 of France was discovered to be absolutely mort- 
 gaged, and another third was swallowed up by 
 
54 
 
 FIRST SETTLEilENT OF NEW ENGLAND. 
 
 other encumbrances. leaving but one third free 
 for the use and benefit of its owners. In otlier 
 words, a great proportion of the people of France 
 were embarrassed and poor, and a great propor- 
 tion of the remainder were fast becoming so. 
 
 "Such a state of things produced, of course, 
 a wide-spread social uneasiness. Part of this 
 unea.<iness was directed against the existing 
 government; inotlier and more formidable por- 
 tion was directed against all government, and 
 against the very institution of property. The 
 eoDTulflion of 1848 followed; France is still 
 
 unsettled; and Mr. Webster's prophecy seems 
 still to be in the course of a portentous fultil- 
 ment." 
 
 In the London Quarterly Review for 1846 
 there is an interesting discussion on so nnicli 
 of the matter as relates to the subdivision 
 of real estate for agricultural purposes in 
 France, as far as it had then advanced, and 
 from which many of the facts here &ilud«d 
 to are taken. 
 
DEFENCE OF JUDGE JAMES PRESCOTT. 
 
 THE CLOSING APPEAL TO THE SENATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN MR. WEB- 
 STER'S "ARGUMENT ON TUE IMPEACHMENT OF JAMES PRESCOTT," APRIL 
 24th, 1821. 
 
 ^Ir. President, the case is closed! 
 The fate of the respondent is in your 
 hands. It is for you now to say, whether, 
 from the law and the facts as they have 
 appeared before you, you will proceed to 
 disgrace and disfranchise him. If your 
 duty calls on you to convict him, let jus- 
 tice be done, and convict him; but, I 
 adjure you, let it be a clear, undoubted 
 case. Let it be so for his sake, for you 
 are robbing: him of that for which, with 
 aU your high powers, j'ou can yield him 
 no compensation; let it be so for your 
 own sakes, for the responsibility of this 
 day's judgment is one which you must 
 carry with you through life. For my- 
 self, I am willing here to relinquish the 
 character of an advocate, and to express 
 opinions by which I am prepared to be 
 bound as a citizen and a man. And I 
 say upon my honor and conscience, that 
 I see not how, with the law and consti- 
 tution for your guides, you can pro- 
 nounce the respondent guilty. I declai-e 
 that I have seen no case of wilful and 
 corrupt official misconduct, set forth ac- 
 cording to the requisitions of the con- 
 stitution, and proved according to the 
 common rules of evidence. I see many 
 things imprudent and ill-judged ; many 
 thins:s that I could wish had been other- 
 wise; but corruption and crime I do not 
 see. 
 
 Sir, the prejudices of the day will 
 goon be forgotten; the passions, if any 
 there be, which have excited or favored 
 this prosecution will subside ; but the con- 
 sequence of the judgment you are about 
 to render will outlive both them and 
 
 you. The respondent is now brought, 
 a single, unprotected individual, to this 
 formidable bar of judgment, to stand 
 against the power and authority of the 
 State. I know you can crush him, as 
 he stands before you, and clothed as you 
 are with the sovereignty of the State. 
 You have the power " to change his 
 countenance and to send him away." 
 Nor do I remind you, that your judg- 
 ment is to be rejudged by the commu- 
 nity; and, as you have smnmoned him 
 for trial to this high tribunal, that you 
 are soon to descend yourselves from these 
 seats of justice, and stand before the 
 higher tribunal of the world. I would 
 not fail so much in respect to this hon- 
 orable court as to hint that it could pro- 
 nounce a sentence which the community 
 will reverse. No, Sir, it is not the 
 world's revision which I would call on 
 you to regard; but that of your own 
 consciences, when years have gone by 
 and you shall look back on the sentence 
 you are about to render. If you send 
 away the respondent, condemned and 
 sentenced, from your bar, you are yet 
 to meet him in the world on which you 
 cast him out. You will be called to be- 
 hold him a disgrace to his family, a 
 sorrow and a shame to his children, a 
 living fountain of grief and agony to 
 himself. 
 
 If you shall then be able to behold 
 him only as an unjust judge, whom ven- 
 geance has overtaken and justice has 
 blasted, you will be able to look upon 
 him, not without pity, but yet without 
 remorse. But if, on the other hand, you 
 
o6 
 
 DEFENCE OF JUDGE JAMES PRESCOTT. 
 
 shall see, whenever and wherever you 
 meet him, a victim of prejudice or of 
 passion, a sacrifice to a transient excite- 
 ment; if you shall see in hira a man for 
 whose condemnation any provision of 
 the constitution has been violated or any 
 principle of law broken do^\'n, then ^Yill 
 he be able, humble and low as may be 
 his condition, then will he be able to 
 turn the current of compassion back- 
 ward, and to look with pity on those 
 who have been his judges. If you are 
 about to visit this respondent with a 
 judgment which shall blast his house; if 
 the bosoms of the innocent and the ami- 
 able are to be made to bleed under your 
 infliction, I beseecli you to be able to 
 state clear and strong grounds for your 
 proceeding. Prejudice and excitement 
 are transitory, and will pass away. Po- 
 litical expediency, in matters of judica- 
 ture, is a false and hollow principle, and 
 will never satisfy the conscience of liim 
 who is fearful that he may have given a 
 hasty judgment. I earnestly entreat 
 you, for your own sakes, to possess your- 
 selves of solid reasons, founded in truth 
 and justice, for the judgment j'ou pro- 
 nounce, which you can carry with you 
 till you go down into your graves; rea- 
 sons which it will require no argument 
 to revive, no sophistry, no excitement, 
 no regard to popular favor, to render sat- 
 isfactoiy to your consciences; reasons 
 which you can appeal to in every crisis 
 of your lives, and which shall be able to 
 assure you, in your own great extremity, 
 that you have not judged a fellow-crea- 
 ture without mercy. 
 
 Sir, I have done with the case of this 
 individual, and now leave it in your 
 liands. But I would yet once more ap- 
 peal to you as public men ; as statesmen ; 
 as men of enlightened minds, capable of 
 a large view of things, and of foreseeing 
 
 the remote consequences of imjtortant 
 transactions; and, as such, 1 would most 
 earnestly implore you to consider fully of 
 the judgment you may pronounce. You 
 are about to give a construction to con- 
 stitutional provisions which may adhere 
 to that instrument for ages, either for 
 good or evil. I may perhaps overrate 
 the importance of this occasion to the 
 public welfare ; but I confess it does ap- 
 pear to me that, if this body give its 
 sanction to some of the principles which 
 have been advanced on this occasion, 
 then there is a power in the State above 
 the constitution and the law; a power 
 essentially arbitrary and despotic, the 
 exercise of which may be most danger- 
 ous. If impeachment be not under the 
 rule of the constitution and the laws, 
 then may we ti'emble, not only for those 
 who may be impeached, but for all 
 others. If the full benefit of every con- 
 stitutional provision be not extended to 
 the respondent, his case becomes the 
 case of all the people of the Common- 
 wealth. The constitution is their con- 
 stitution. They have made it for their 
 owTi protection, and for his among the 
 rest. They are not eager for his con\ac- 
 tion. They desire not his ruin. If he 
 be condemned, without having his of- 
 fences set forth in the manner which 
 they, by their constitution, have pre- 
 scribed, and in the manner which they, 
 by their laws, have ordained, then not 
 only is he condemned unjustly, but the 
 rights of the whole people are disre- 
 garded. For the sake of the people 
 themselves, therefore, I would resist aU 
 attempts to convict by straining the laws 
 or getting over their prohibitions. I 
 hold up before him the broad shield of 
 the constitution; if through that he be 
 pierced and fall, he will be but one suf- 
 ferer in a common catastrophe. 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESEXTATIVES OF THR 
 UNITED STATES, ON THE 10th OF JANUARY, 182i. 
 
 [ TnE rise and progress of the revolution 
 in Greece attracted great attention in tlie 
 United States. Many obvious causes con- 
 tributed to tbis effect, and their influence 
 was seconded by tlie direct appeal made to 
 tiie people of America, by the tirst political 
 body organized in Greece after tlie breaking 
 out of tiie revolution, viz. "The Messenian 
 Senate of Calamata." A formal address 
 was made b)' that body to the people of the 
 United States, and forwarded by their com- 
 mittee (of which the celebrated Koray was 
 chairman), to a friend and correspondent in 
 this country. This address was translated 
 and widely circulated; but it was not to be 
 expected that any great degree of confi- 
 dence should be at once generally felt in a 
 movement undertaken against such formi- 
 dable odds. 
 
 The progress of events, however, in 1822 
 and lS2o, was such as to create an impres- 
 sion that the revolution in Greece had a sub- 
 stantial foundation in the state of affairs, 
 in the awakened spirit of that country, and 
 in the condition of public opinion through- 
 out Christendom. Tlie interest felt in the 
 struggle rapidly increased in the United 
 States. Local committees were formed, 
 animated appeals were made, and funds 
 collected, with a view to the relief of the 
 victims of the war. 
 
 On the assembling of Congress, in Decem- 
 ber, 182-'], President Monroe made the revo- 
 lution in Greece the subject of a paragraph 
 in his annual message, and on the bth of 
 December Mr. Webster moved the follow- 
 ing resolution in the House of Representa- 
 tives : — 
 ! " Resolved, That provision ought to be 
 made, by law, for defraying the expense 
 incident to the appointment of an Agent or 
 Commissioner to Greece, whenever the Pres- 
 ident shall deem it expedient to make such 
 appointment." 
 
 These, it is believed, are the first official 
 expressions favorable to the independence 
 of Greece uttered by any of the govern- 
 ments of Christendom, and no doubt con- 
 tributed powerfully towards the creation of 
 that feeling throughout the civilized world 
 
 which eventually led to the battle ol Nava 
 rino, and the liberation of a portion of 
 Greece from the Turkish yoke. 
 
 The House of Representatives having, on 
 the 19th of January, resolved itself into a 
 committee of the whole, and this resolution 
 being taken into consideration, Mr. Webster 
 spoke to the following effect.] 
 
 I AM afraid, ^Ir. Chairman, that, so 
 far as niy part in this discussion is con- 
 cerned, those expectations which the 
 public excitement existing on the sub- 
 ject, and certain associations easily sug- 
 gested by it, have conspired to raise, 
 may be disappointed. An occasion 
 which calls the attention to a spot so 
 distinguished, so connected with inter- 
 esting recollections, as Greece, may natu- 
 rally create something of warmth and 
 enthusiasm. In a grave, political dis- 
 cussion, however, it is necessaiy that 
 those feelings should be chastised. 1 
 shall endeavor properly to repress them, 
 although it is impossible that they 
 should be altogether extinguished. We 
 must, indeed, fly beyond tiie civilized 
 world; we must pass the dominion of law 
 and the boundaries of knowledge; wo 
 must, more especially, withdraw our- 
 selves from this place, and the scenes 
 and objects which here surround us, — 
 if we would separate ourselves entirely 
 from the influence of all those memorials 
 of herself which ancient Greece has 
 transmitted for the admiration and the 
 benefit of mankind. This free form of 
 government, this popular assembly, the 
 common council held for the common 
 good, — where have we contemplated its 
 earliest models? This practice of free 
 debate and public discussion, the contest 
 
58 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 A mind with mind, and that popular 
 eloquence, which, if it were now here, 
 on a subject like this, would move the 
 stones of the Capitol, — whose was the 
 language in which all these were first 
 exhibited? Even the edifice in which 
 we assemble, these proportioned col- 
 umns, this ornamented architecture, all 
 remind us that Greece has existed, and 
 that we, like the rest of mankind, are 
 greatly her debtors. ^ 
 
 But I have not introduced this motion 
 in the vain hope of discharging any 
 thing of this accumulated debt of centu- 
 ries. I have not acted upon the expec- 
 tation, tliat we who have inherited this 
 obligation from our ancestors should 
 now attempt to pay it to those who may 
 Beem to have inherited from their ances- 
 tors a right to receive payment. My 
 object is nearer and more immediate. I 
 wish to take occasion of the struggle of 
 an interesting and gallant people, in the 
 cause of liberty and Christianity, to draw 
 the attention of the House to the circum- 
 stances which have accompanied that 
 struggle, and to the principles which 
 appear to have governed the conduct of 
 the great states of Europe in regard to 
 it; and to the effects and consequences 
 of these principles upon the indepen- 
 dence of nations, and especially upon 
 the institutions of free governments. 
 What I have to say of Greece, therefore, 
 concerns the modern, not the ancient; 
 the living, and not the dead. It regards 
 her, not as she exists iu histoiy, trium- 
 phant over time, and tyranny, and igno- 
 rance; but as she now is, contending, 
 against fearful odds, for being, and 
 for the common privileges of human 
 nature. 
 
 As it ia never difficult to recite com- 
 monplao3 remarks and trite ai^horisms, 
 60 it may be easy, I am aware, on this 
 occasion, to remind me of the wisdom 
 w Inch dictates to men a care of their own 
 affairs, and admonishes them, instead 
 of searching for adventmes abroad, to 
 leave other men's concerns in their own 
 bands. It may be easy to call this reso- 
 
 1 The interior of the hall of the House of 
 Representatives is surrounded by a niaRniQcent 
 colonnade of the composite order. [ISii.] 
 
 lution Quixotic, the emanation of a cru- 
 sading or propagandist spirit. All this, 
 and more, may be readily said; but all 
 this, and more, will not be allowed to 
 fix a character upon this proceeding, 
 until that is proved which it takes for 
 granted. Let it first be shown, that in 
 this question there is nothing which can 
 affect the interest, the character, or the 
 duty of this country. Let it be proved, 
 that we are not called upon, by either 
 of these considerations, to express an 
 opinion on the subject to which the 
 resolution relates. Let this be proved, 
 and then it will indeed be made out, 
 that neither ought this resolution to pass, 
 nor ought the subject of it to have been 
 mentioned in the communication of the 
 President to us. But, in my opinion, 
 this cannot be shown. In my judgment, 
 the subject is interesting to the people 
 and the government of this country, and 
 we are called upon, by considerations of 
 great weight and moment, to express 
 our opinions upon it. These considera- 
 tions, I think, spring from a sense of 
 our own duty, our character, and our own 
 interest. I wish to treat the subject on 
 such grounds, exclusively, as are truly 
 American; but then, in considering it 
 as an American question, I cannot for- 
 get the age in which we live, the pre- 
 vailing spirit of the age, the interesting 
 questions which agitate it, and our own 
 peculiar relation in regard to these inter- 
 esting questions. Let this be, then, and 
 as far as I am concerned I hope it will 
 be, purely an American discussion; but 
 let it embrace, nevertheless, every thing 
 that fairly concerns America. Let it 
 comprehend, not merely her present ad- 
 vantage, but her permanent interest, her 
 elevated character as one of the free 
 states of the world, and her duty towards 
 those great principles which have hith- 
 erto maintained the relative indepen- 
 dence of nations, and which have, mo;e 
 especially, made her what she is. 
 
 At the commencement of the session, 
 the President, in the discharge of the 
 high duties of his office, called our at- 
 tention to tlie subject to which this res- 
 olution refers. " A strong hope," says 
 tliat communication, ♦' has been long 
 
THE EEVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 59 
 
 entertained, founded on the heroic strug- 
 gle of the Greeks, that they would suc- 
 ceed in their contest, and resume their 
 equal station among the nations of the 
 earth. It is believed that the whole 
 civilized world takes a deep interest in 
 their welfare. Although no power has 
 declared in their favor, yet none, ac- 
 cording to our information, has taken 
 part against them. Their cause and 
 their name have protected them from 
 dangers which might ere this have over- 
 whelmed any other people. The ordi- 
 nary calculations of interest, and of 
 acquisition with a view to aggrandize- 
 ment, which mingle so much in the 
 transactions of nations, seem to have 
 had no effect in regard to them. From 
 the facts which have come to our knowl- 
 edge, there is good cause to believe that 
 their enemy has lost for ever all domin- 
 ion over them; that Greece will become 
 again an independent nation." 
 
 It has appeared to me that the House 
 fihould adopt some resolution reciprocat- 
 ing these sentiments, so far as it shall 
 approve them. More than twenty years 
 have elapsed since Congi-ess first ceased 
 to receive such a communication from 
 the President as could properly be made 
 the subject of a general answer. I do 
 not mean to find fault with this relin- 
 quishment of a former and an ancient 
 practice. It may have been attended 
 ■with inconveniences which justified its 
 abolition. But, certainly, there was one 
 advantage belonging to it; and that is, 
 that it furnished a fit opportunity for 
 the expression of the opinion of the 
 Houses of Congress upon those topics 
 in the executive communication which 
 were not expected to be made the im- 
 mediate subjects of direct legislation. 
 Since, therefore, the President's mes- 
 sage does not now receive a general an- 
 swer, it has seemed to me to be proper 
 that, in some mode, agreeable to our 
 own usual form of proceeding, we should 
 express our sentiments upon the impor- 
 tant and interesting topics on which it 
 treats. 
 
 If the sentiments of the message in 
 respect to Greece be proper, it is equally 
 proper that this House should recipro- 
 
 cate those sentiments. The present res- 
 olution is designed to have that extent, 
 and no more. If it pass, it will leave 
 any future proceeding where it now is, 
 in the discretion of the executive gov- 
 ernment. It is but an expression, under 
 those forms in which the House is ac- 
 customed to act. of the satisfaction of 
 the House with the general sentiments 
 expressed in regard to this subject in the 
 message, and of its readiness to defray 
 the expense incident to any inquiry for 
 the purpose of further information, or 
 any other agency which the President, 
 in his discretion, shall see fit, in what- 
 ever manner and at whatever time, to 
 institute. The whole matter is stiU left 
 in his judgment, and this resolution can 
 in no way restrain its unlimited exer- 
 cise. 
 
 I might well, ^Ir. Chairman, avoid 
 the responsibility of this measure, if it 
 had, in my judgment, any tendency to 
 change the policy of the country. "With 
 the general course of that policy I am 
 quite satisfied. The nation is prosper- 
 ous, peaceful, and happy; and I should 
 very reluctantly put its peace, prosper- 
 ity, or happiness at risk. It appears to 
 me, however, that this resolution is 
 strictly conformable to our general pol- 
 icy, and not only consistent with our 
 interests, but even demanded by a large 
 and liberal view of those interests. 
 
 It is certainly true that the just pol- 
 icy of this country is, in the first place, 
 a peaceful policy. Xo nation ever had 
 less to expect from forcible aggrandize- 
 ment. The mighty agents which are 
 working out our greatness are time, in- 
 dustry, and the arts. Our augmenta- 
 tion is by growth, not by acquisition; 
 by internal development, not by exter- 
 nal accession. No schemes can be sug- 
 gested to us so magnificent as the 
 prospects which a sober contemplation 
 of our own condition, unaided by proj- 
 ects, uninfluenced by ambition, fairly 
 spreads before us. A country of such 
 vast extent, with such varieties of soil 
 and climate, with so much public spirit 
 and private enterprise, with a popula- 
 tion increasing so much beyond former 
 example, with capacities of improvt*- 
 
60 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 nieut not only unapplied or unex- 
 hausted, but even, in a great measure, 
 as yet unexplored, — so free in its insti- 
 tutions, so inild in its laws, so secure in 
 the title it confers on every man to his 
 own acqui ntions, — needs nothing but 
 time and peace to carry it forward to 
 almost any point of advancement. 
 
 In the next place, I take it for granted 
 that the policy of this country, spring- 
 ing from the nature of our government 
 and the spirit of all our institutions, is, 
 so far as it respects the interesting ques- 
 tions which agitate the present age, on 
 the side of liberal and enlightened sen- 
 timents. The age is extraordinary; 
 the spirit that actuates it is peculiar and 
 marked; and our own relation to the 
 times we live in, and to the questions 
 which interest them, is equally marked 
 and peculiar. We are placed, by our 
 good fortune and the wisdom and valor 
 of our ancestors, in a condition in which 
 we can act no obscure part. Be it for 
 honor, or be it for dishonor, whatever 
 we do is sure to attract the observation 
 of the world. As one of the free states 
 among the nations, as a great and rap- 
 idly rising republic, it would be impos- 
 sible for us, if we were so disposed, to 
 prevent our principles, our sentiments, 
 and our example from producing some 
 effect upon the opinions and hopes of 
 society throughout the civilized world. 
 It rests probably with ourselves to detei-- 
 mine whether the influence of these shall 
 be salutary or pernicious. 
 
 It cannot be denied that the great 
 political question of this age is that 
 between absolute and regulated govern- 
 ments. The substance of the contro- 
 versy is whether society shall have any 
 part in its own governnn^nt. Whether 
 the form of government shall be that of 
 limited moiuirchy, with more or less 
 mixture of hereditary power, or wholly 
 elective or representative, may perhaps 
 be considered as subordinate. Tiie 
 main controversy is between that abso- 
 lute rule, which, while it promises to 
 govern well, means, nevertheless, to 
 govern without control, and that consti- 
 tutional system which restrains sover- 
 eign discretion, and asserts that society 
 
 may claim as matter of right some effec- 
 tive power in the establishment of the 
 laws which are to regulate it. The 
 spirit of the times sets with a most pr>w- 
 erful current in favor of these last-men- 
 tioned opinions. It is opposed, however, 
 whenever and wherever it shows itself, 
 by certain of the great potentates of Eu- 
 rope; and it is opposed on grounds as 
 applicable in one ciWlized nation as ia 
 another, and Mhich would justify such 
 opposition in relation to the United 
 States, as well as in relation to any other 
 state or nation, if time and circumstan 
 ces should render such opposition expe 
 dient. 
 
 What part it becomes this countiy to 
 take on a question of this sort, so far a« 
 it is called upon to take any part, can- 
 not be doubtful. Our side of this ques- 
 tion is settled for us, even without our 
 own volition. Our history, our situa- 
 tion, our character, necessarily decide 
 our position and our course, before we 
 have even time to ask whether we have 
 an option. Our place is on the side of 
 free institutions. From the earliest set- 
 tlement of these States, their inhabi- 
 tants were accustomed, in a greater or 
 less degree, to the enjoyment of the 
 powers of self-government ; and for the 
 last half-century they have sustained 
 systems of government entirely repre- 
 sentative, yielding to themselves the 
 greatest possible prosperity, and not 
 leaving them without distinction and 
 respect among the nations of the earth. 
 This system we are not likiUy to aban- 
 don; and while we shall no farther rec- 
 ommend its adoption to other nations, 
 in whole or in part, than it may recom- 
 mend itself by its visible influence on 
 our own growth and prosperity, we are, 
 nevertheless, interested to resist the es- 
 tablishment of doctrines which deny the 
 legality of its foundations. We stand 
 as an equal among nations, claiming the 
 full benefit of the established interna- 
 tional law; and it is our duty to oppose, 
 from the earlie-><t to the latest moment, 
 any innovations upon that code which 
 shall bring into doubt or question out 
 own equal and independent rights. 
 
 I will now, Mr. Chairman, advert to 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 61 
 
 those preUusions put foitli by the allied 
 sovereigns of Continental Europe, which 
 seem to me calculated, if unresisted, to 
 bring into disrepute the principles of 
 our government, and, indeed, to be 
 wholly incompatible with any degree of 
 national independence. I do not intro- 
 duce these considerations for the sake 
 of topics. I am not about to declaim 
 against crowned heads, nor to quarrel 
 with any country for preferring a form 
 of government different from our own. 
 The right of choice that we exercise for 
 ourselves, I am quite willing to leave 
 also to others. But it appears to me 
 that the pretensions to which I have 
 alluded are wholly inconsistent with the 
 independence of nations generally, witli- 
 out regard to the question whether their 
 governments be absolute, monarchical 
 and limited, or purely popular and rep- 
 resentative. I have a most deep and 
 thorough conviction, that a new era has 
 arisen in the world, that new and dan- 
 gerous combinations are taking place, 
 promulgating doctrines and fraught 
 with consequences wholly subversive in 
 tlieir. tendency of the public law of na- 
 tions and of the general liberties of man- 
 kind. Whether this be so, or not, is 
 the question which I now propose to ex- 
 amine, upon such grounds of informa- 
 tion as are afforded by the common and 
 public means of knowledge. 
 
 Everybody knows that, since the final 
 restoration of the Bourbons to the throne 
 of France, the Continental powers have 
 entered into sundry alliances, which have 
 been made public, and have held sev- 
 eral meetings or congresses, at which 
 the principles of their political conduct 
 have been declared. These things must 
 necessarily have an effect upon the in- 
 ternational law of the states of the world. 
 If that effect be good, and according to 
 the principles of that law, they deserve 
 to be applauded. If, on the contrary, 
 their effect and tendency be most dan- 
 gerous, their principles wholly inadmis- 
 sille, their pretensions such as would 
 abolish every degree of national inde- 
 pendence, then they are to be resisted. 
 
 I begin, Mr. Chairman, by drawing 
 your attention to the treatv concluded 
 
 at Paris in September, 1815, between 
 Russia, Prussia, and Austria, commonly 
 called the Holy Alliance. This singular 
 alliance appears to have originated with 
 the Emperor of Russia; for we are in- 
 formed that a draft of it was exhibited 
 by him, personally, to a plenipotentiary 
 of one of the great powers of Europe, 
 before it was presented to the other 
 sovereigns who ultimately sign«d it.^ 
 This instrument professes nothing, cer- 
 tainly, which is not extremely commend- 
 able and praiseworthy. It promises only 
 that the conti-acting parties, both in re- 
 lation to other states, and in regard to 
 their own subjects, will observe the rules 
 of justice and Christianity. In confir- 
 mation of these promises, it makes the 
 most solemn and devout religious invo- 
 cations. Xow, although such an alliance 
 is a novelty in European history, the 
 world seems to have received this treaty, 
 upon its first promulgation, with general 
 charity. It was connnonly understood 
 as little or nothing more than an ex- 
 pression of thanks for the successful 
 termination of the momentous contest 
 in which those sovereigns had been en- 
 gaged. It still seems somewhat unac- 
 countable, however, that these good 
 resolutions should require to be con- 
 firmed by treaty. Who doubted that 
 these august sovereigns would treat each 
 other with justice, and rule their own 
 subjects in mercy? And what necessity 
 was there for a solemn stipulation by 
 treaty, to insure the performance of that 
 which is no more than the ordinary duty 
 of every government? It would hardly 
 be admitted by these sovereigns, that by 
 this compact they consider themselves 
 bound to introduce an entire change, or 
 any change in the course of their own 
 conduct. Nothing substantially new, 
 certainly, can be supposed to have been 
 intended. What principle, or what prac- 
 tice, therefore, called for this solemn 
 declaration of the intention of the par- 
 ties to observe the rules of religion and 
 justice? 
 
 1 See Lord Castlereagh's speech in the House 
 of (;oiiinions, February 3, 1816. Debates in 
 I'arliaiueiit, Vol. XXXVI. p. .355; where also 
 the treaty may be found at length. 
 
62 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 It is not a little remarkable, that a 
 writer of reputation upon the Public 
 Law, described, many years ago, not 
 inaccurately, the character of this alli- 
 ance. I allude to Puffendorf. " It 
 seems useless," says he, "to frame any 
 pacts or leagues, barely for the defence 
 and support of universal peace; for by 
 such a league nothing is superadded to 
 the obligation of natural law, and no 
 agreement is made for the performance 
 of any thing which the parties were not 
 previously bound to perform ; nor is the 
 original obligation rendered firmer or 
 stronger by such an addition. Men of 
 any tolerable culture and civilization 
 might well be ashamed of entering into 
 any such compact, the conditions of 
 which imply only that the parties con- 
 cerned shall not offend in any clear 
 point of duty. Besides, we should be 
 guilty of great irreverence towards God, 
 should we suppose that his injunctions 
 had not already laid a sufficient obliga- 
 tion upon us to act justly, unless we 
 ourselves voluntarily consented to the 
 same engagement; as if our obligation 
 to obey his will depended upon our own 
 pleasure. 
 
 "If one engage to serve another, he 
 does not set it down expressly and par- 
 ticularly among the terms and condi- 
 tions of the bargain, that he will not 
 betray nor murder him, nor pillage nor 
 burn his house. For the same reason, 
 that would be a dishonorable engage- 
 ment in which men should bind them- 
 selves to act properly and decently, and 
 not break the peace." ^ 
 
 Such were the sentiments of that emi- 
 nent writer. IIow nearly he had antici- 
 pated the case of the Holy Alliance will 
 appear from the preamble to that alli- 
 ance. After stating that the allied 
 sovereigns had become persuaded, by 
 the events of the last three years, that 
 " their relations with each other ought 
 to be regulated exclusively by the sub- 
 lime truths taught by the eternal relig- 
 ion of God the Saviour," they solemnly 
 declare their fixed resolution " to adopt 
 as the sole rule of their conduct, both 
 
 1 Law of Nature and Nations, Book IL cap. 
 8, § U. 
 
 in the administration of their respective 
 states, and in their political relations 
 with every other government, the pre- 
 cepts of that holy religion, namely, the 
 precepts of justice, charity, and peace, 
 which, far from being applicable to pri- 
 vate life alone, ought, on the contrary, 
 to have a direct influence upon the coun- 
 sels of princes, and guide all their steps, 
 as being the only means of consoli<lating 
 human institutions, and remedying their 
 imperfections." * 
 
 This measure, however, appears prin- 
 cipally important, as it was the first of 
 a series, and was followed afterwards by 
 others of a more marked and practical 
 nature. These measures, taken to- 
 gether, profess to establish two princi- 
 ples, which the Allied Powers would 
 introduce as a part of the law of the 
 civilized world; and the establishment 
 of which is to be enforced by a million 
 and a half of bayonets. 
 
 The first of these principles is, that 
 all popular or constitutional rights are 
 held no otherwise than as grants from 
 the crown. Society, upon this princi- 
 ple, has no rights of its own; it takes 
 good government, when it gets it, as a 
 boon and a concession, but can demand 
 nothing. It is to live by that favor which 
 emanates from royal authority, and if 
 it have the misfortune to lose that favor, 
 there is nothing to protect it against any 
 degree of injustice and oppression. It 
 can rightfully make no endeavor for a 
 change, by itself; its whole privilege is 
 to receive the favors that may be dis- 
 pensed by the sovereign power, and all 
 its duty is described in the single word 
 submission. This is the plain result of 
 the principal Continental state papers; 
 indeed, it is nearly the identical text of 
 some of them. 
 
 The circular de.spatch addressed by 
 the sovereigns assembled at Laybach, 
 in the spring of 1821, to their ministers 
 at foreign courts, alleges, " that useful 
 and necessary changes in legislation and 
 in the administration of states ought 
 only to emanate from the free will and 
 intelligent and well-weighed conviction 
 
 2 Martens, Recueil des Traitds, Tome XIII. 
 p. GoG. 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 63 
 
 of those whom God has rendered re- 
 eponsible for power. All that deviates 
 from this line necessarily leads to dis- 
 order, commotions, and evils far more 
 iasufferable than those which they pre- 
 tend to remedy." ^ Now, Sir, this prin- 
 ciple would carry Europe back again, at 
 once, into the middle of the Dark Ages. 
 It is the old doctrine of the Divine right 
 of kings, advanced now by new advo- 
 cates, and sustained by a formidable 
 array of power. That the people hold 
 their fundamental privileges as matter 
 of concession or indulgence from the 
 sovereign power, is a sentiment not easy 
 to be diffused in this age, any farther 
 than it is enforced by the direct opera- 
 tion of military means. It is true, cer- 
 tainly, that some six centuries ago the 
 early founders of English liberty called 
 the instrument which secured their rights 
 a charter. It was, indeed, a concession; 
 they had obtained it sword in hand from 
 the king; and in many other cases, what- 
 ever was obtained, favorable to human 
 rights , from the tyranny and despotism 
 of the feudal sovereigns, was called by 
 the names of pricUeges and liberties, as 
 being matter of special favor. Though 
 we retain this language at the present 
 time, the principle itself belongs to ages 
 that have long passed by us. The civil- 
 ized world has done with " the enormous 
 faith, of many made for one." Society 
 asserts its own rights, and alleges them 
 to be original, sacred, and unalienable. 
 It is not satisfied with having kind mas- 
 ters; it demands a participation in its 
 own government; and in states much 
 advanced in civilization, it urges this 
 demand with a constancy and an energy 
 that cannot well nor long be resisted. 
 There are, happily, enough of regulated 
 governments in the world, and those 
 among the most distinguished, to op- 
 erate as constant examples, and to keep 
 alive an unceasing panting in the bosoms 
 of men for the enjoyment of similar free 
 institutions. 
 
 When the English Revolution of 1688 
 took place, the English people did not 
 content themselves with the example of 
 
 I Annual Register for 1821, p. 601. 
 
 Runnymede; they did not build their 
 hopes upon royal charters ; they did not, 
 like the authors of the Laybach circular, 
 suppose that all useful changes in con- 
 stitutions and laws must proceed from 
 those only whom God has rendered re- 
 sponsible for power. They were some- 
 what better instructed in the principle* 
 of civil liberty, or at least they were 
 better lovers of those principles than 
 the sovereigns of Laybach. Instead of 
 petitioning for charters, they declared 
 their rights, and while they oflered to 
 the Prince of Orange the crown w ith one 
 hand, they held in the other an enu- 
 meration of those privileges which they 
 did not profess to hold as favore, but 
 which they demanded and insisted upon 
 as their undoubted rights. 
 
 I need not stop to observe, Mr. Chair- 
 man, how totally hostile are these doc- 
 trines of Laybach to the fundamental 
 principles of our government. They are 
 in direct contradiction; the principles 
 of good and evil are hardly more oppo- 
 site. If these principles of the sov- 
 ereigns be true, we are but in a state of 
 rebellion or of anarchy, and are only 
 tolerated among civilized states because 
 it has not yet been convenient to reduce 
 us to the true standard. 
 
 But the second, and, if possible, the 
 still more objectionable principle, avowed 
 in these papers, is the right of forcible 
 interference in the affairs of other states. 
 A right to control nations in their desire 
 to change their own government, wher- 
 ever it maybe conjectured, or pretended, 
 that such change might furnish an ex- 
 ample to the subjects of other states, is 
 plainly and distinctly asserted. The 
 same Consfress that made the declara<- 
 tion at Laybach had declared, before its 
 removal from Troppau, " that the pow- 
 ers have an undoubted right to take a 
 hostile attitude in regard to those states 
 in which the overthrow of the govern- 
 ment may operate a? an example." 
 
 There cannot, as I think, be conceived 
 a more flagrant violation of public law, 
 or national independence, than is con- 
 tained in this short declaration. 
 
 No matter what be the character of 
 the government resisted; no matter with 
 
64 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 what weight the foot of the oppressor 
 bears on the neck of the oppressed; if 
 he struggle, or if he complain, he sets a 
 dangerous example of resistance, — and 
 from that moment he becomes an object 
 of hostility to the most powerful poten- 
 tates of the earth. I want words to ex- 
 press my abhorrence of this abominable 
 principle. I trust every enlightened man 
 throughout the world will oppose it, 
 and that, especially, those who, like our- 
 selves, are fortunately out of the reach 
 of the bayonets that enforce it, will pro- 
 claim their detestation of it, in a tone 
 both loud and decisive. The avowed 
 object of such declarations is to preserve 
 the peace of the world. But by what 
 means is it proposed to preserve this 
 peace ? Simply, by bringing the power 
 of all governments to bear against all 
 subjects. Here is to be established a sort 
 of double, or treble, or quadruple, or, 
 for aught I know, quintuple allegiance. 
 An offence against one king is to be an 
 offence against all kings, and the power 
 of all is to be put forth for the punish- 
 ment of the offender. A right to inter- 
 fere in extreme cases, in the case of 
 contiguous states, and where imminent 
 danger is threatened to one by what is 
 occurring in another, is not without pre- 
 cedent in modern times, upon what has 
 been called the law of vicinage; and 
 when confined to extreme cases, and 
 limited to a certain extent, it may 
 perhaps be defended upon principles of 
 necessity and self-defence. But to main- 
 tain that sovereigns may go to war upon 
 the subjects of another state to repress 
 an example, is monstrous indeed. "What 
 is to be the limit to such a principle, or 
 to the practice growing out of it ? What, 
 in any case, but sovereign pleasure, is 
 to decide whether the example be good 
 or bad ? And wliat, under the operation 
 of such a rule, may be thought of our 
 example ? AViiy are we not as fair ob- 
 jects for the operation of the new prin- 
 ciple, as any of those who may attempt 
 a reform of government on the other 
 eide of tlie Atlantic ? 
 
 The ultimate effect of this alliance 
 of sovereigns, for objects personal to 
 themselves, or respecting only the per- 
 
 manence of their o^ti power, must he 
 the destruction of all just feeling, and 
 all natural sympathy, between those 
 who exercise the power of govern- 
 ment and those who are subject to it. 
 The old channels of mutual regard and 
 confidence are to be dried up, or cut 
 off. Obedience can now be expected no 
 longer than it is enforced. Instead of 
 relying on the affections of the gov- 
 erned, sovereigns are to rely on the 
 affections and friendship of other sov- 
 ereigns. There are, in short, no longer 
 to be nations. Princes and people are 
 no longer to unite for interests common 
 to them both. There is to be an end of 
 all patriotism, as a distinct national 
 feeling. Society is to be divided hori- 
 zontally; all sovereigns above, and all 
 subjects below; the former coalescing 
 for their own security, and for the more 
 certain subjection of the undistinguished 
 multitude beneath. This, Sir, is no 
 picture drawn by imagination. I have 
 hardly used language stronger than that 
 in which the authors of this new system 
 have commented on their o'v^^l work. 
 M. de Chateaubriand, in his speech in 
 the French Chamber of Deputies, in 
 Februaiy la.st, declared, that he had a 
 conference with the Emperor of Russia 
 at Verona, in which that august sover- 
 eign uttered sentiments which appeared 
 to him so precious, that he immediately 
 hastened home, and wrote them down 
 while yet fresh in his recollection. " The 
 Emperor declared," said he, " that 
 there can no longer be such a thing as 
 an English, French, Russian, Prussian, 
 or Austrian policy; there is henceforth 
 but one policy, which, for the safety of 
 all, should be adopted both by people 
 and kings. It was for me first to show 
 myself convinced of the principles upon 
 which I founded the alliance; an occa- 
 sion offered itself, — the rising in Greece. 
 Nothing certainly could occur more for 
 my interests, for the interests of my 
 people, nothing more acceptable to my 
 country, than a religious war in Turkey. 
 Bu^I have thouglit I perceived in the 
 troubles of the !Morea the sign of revo- 
 lution, and I have held back. Provi 
 deuce has not put under my commar i 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 Go 
 
 eight hundred thousand soldiers to sat- 
 isfy my auibiliou, but to protect relig- 
 ion, morality, and justice, and to secure 
 the prevalence of tliose principles of 
 order on which human society rests. It 
 may well be permitted, that kings may 
 have public alliances to defend them- 
 selves against secret enemies." 
 
 These, Sir, are the words which the 
 French minister thought so important 
 Uiat they deserved to be recorded ; audi, 
 tco. Sir, am of the same opinion. B\it 
 if it be true that there is hereafter to be 
 neither a Russian policy, nor a Prus- 
 sian policy, nor an Austrian policy, nor 
 a French jwlicy, nor even, which yet I 
 will not believe, an English policy, there 
 will be, I trust in God, an American 
 policy. If the authority of all these 
 governments be hereafter to be mixed 
 and blended, and to flow in one aug- 
 mented current of prerogative over the 
 face of Europe, sweeping away all re- 
 sistance in its course, it will yet remain 
 for us to secure our own happiness by 
 the preservation of our own principles; 
 which I hope we shall have the man- 
 liness to express on all proper occasions, 
 and the spirit to defend in every extrem- 
 ity. The end and scope of this amal- 
 gamated policy are neither more nor 
 less than this: to interfere, by force, for 
 any government against any people who 
 may resist it. Be the state of the people 
 what it may, they shall not rise; be the 
 government what it will, it shall not be 
 opposed. 
 
 The practical commentary has corre- 
 sponded with the plain language of the 
 text. Look at Spain, and at Greece. 
 If men may not resist the Spanish In- 
 quisition, and the Turkish cimeter, what 
 is there to which humanity must not 
 submit? Stronger cases can never arise. 
 Is it not proper for us, at all times, is it 
 not our duty, at this time, to come forth, 
 and deny, and condemn, these monstrous 
 principles? Where, but here, and in one 
 other place, are they likely to be resisted? 
 They are advanced with equal coolness 
 and boldness; and they are supported 
 by immense power. ^ The timid will 
 shrink and give way, and many of the 
 brave may be compelled to yield to force. 
 
 Human liberty may yet, perhaps, be 
 obliged to repose its principal hopes on 
 the intelligence and the vigor of the 
 Saxon race. As far as depends on us, 
 at least, I trust those hopes will not be 
 disappointed; and that, to the extent 
 which may consist with our own settled, 
 pacific policy, our opinions and senti- 
 ments may be brought to act on the 
 right side, and to the right end, on an 
 occasion which is, in truth, nothing less 
 than a momentous question between an 
 intelligent age, full of knowledge, thirst- 
 ing for improvement, and quickened l>y 
 a thousand impulses, on one side, and llie 
 most arbitrary pretensions, sustained by 
 unprecedented power, on the other. 
 
 This asserted right of forcible inter- 
 vention in the affairs of other nations is 
 in open violation of the public law of 
 the world. Who has authorized these 
 learned doctors of Troppau to establish 
 new articles in this code? Whence are 
 their diplomas? Is the whole world ex- 
 pected to acquiesce in principles which 
 entirely subvert the independence of 
 nations? On the basis of this indepen- 
 dence has been reared the beautifid 
 fabric of international law. On the 
 principle of this independence, Europe 
 has seen a family of nations flourishing 
 within its limits, the small among the 
 large, protected not always by power, 
 but by a principle above power, by a 
 sense of propriety and justice. On this 
 principle, the great commonwealth of 
 civilized states has been hitherto upheld. 
 There have been occasional departures 
 or violations, and always disastrous, as 
 in the case of Poland; but, in general, 
 the harmony of the system has been 
 wonderfully preserved. In the produc- 
 tion and preservation of this sense of 
 justice, this predominating principle, 
 the Christian religion has acted a main 
 part. Christianity and civilization have 
 labored together ; it seems, indeed, to be 
 a law of our human condition, that they 
 can live and flourish only together. From 
 their blended influence has arisen that 
 delightful spectacle of the prevalence of 
 reason and principle over power and in- 
 terest, so well described by one who waa 
 an honor to the age ; — 
 
66 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 •And sovereign Law, the state's collected will, 
 O'er thrones and j;l(>bes elate, 
 Sits empress, — crowning good, repressing ill : 
 
 Sniit by lier sacred frown. 
 The tiend. Discniinn, like a vapor, einks, 
 
 And e'en the all-dazzling crown 
 Hides his faint rays, and at her bidding 
 shrinks." 
 
 Jiut this vision is past. While the teach- 
 ers of Laybach give the rule, there will 
 he no law but the law of the strongest. 
 
 It may now be required of me to show 
 what interest we have in resisting this 
 new system. What is it to us, it may 
 be asked, upon what principles, or what 
 pretences, the European governments 
 assert a right of interfering in the 
 affairs of their neighbors? The thun- 
 der, it may be said, rolls at a distance. 
 The wide Atlantic is between us and 
 danger; and, however others may suf- 
 fer, ^^'e shall remain safe. 
 
 I think it is a sulRcient answer to this 
 to say, that we are one of the nations of 
 the earth; that we have an interest, 
 therefore, in the preservation of that 
 system of national law and national in- 
 tercourse which has heretofore subsisted, 
 so beneficially for all. Our system of 
 government, it should also be remem- 
 bered, is, throughout, founded on prin- 
 ciples utterly hostile to the new code; 
 and if we remain undisturbed by its 
 operation, we shall owe our security 
 either to our situation or our spirit. 
 The enterprising character of the age, 
 our own active, commercial spirit, the 
 great increase which has taken place 
 in the intercourse among civilized and 
 commercial states, have necessarily con- 
 nected us with other nations, and given 
 us a high concern in the preservation of 
 those salutary principles upon which 
 that intercourse is founded. We have 
 as clear an interest in international 
 law, as individuals have in the laws of 
 society. 
 
 But apart from the soundness of the 
 policy, on the grovmd of direct interest, 
 we have, Sir, a duty connected with 
 this subject, which I trust we are will- 
 ing to perform. What do xce not owe 
 to the cause of civil and religious lib- 
 erty? to the principle of lawful resist- 
 auce? to the principle that society has a 
 
 right to pai-take in its own government? 
 As the leading republic of the world, 
 living and breathing in these principles, 
 and advanced, by their operation, with 
 unequalled rapidity in our career, shall 
 we give our consent to bring them into 
 disrepute and disgrace? It is neither 
 ostentation nor boasting to say, that 
 there lies before this country, in imme- 
 diate prospect, a great extent and height 
 of power. We are borne along towards 
 this without effort, and not always even 
 with a full knowledge of the rapidity of 
 our own motion. Circumstances which 
 never combined before have co-operated 
 in our favor, and a mighty current is set- 
 ting us forward which we could not resist 
 even if we would, and which, while we 
 would stop to make an observation; and 
 take tlie sun, has set us, at the end of 
 the operation, far in advance of the 
 place where we commenced it. Does it 
 not become us, then, is it not a duty 
 imposed on us, to give our weight to 
 tlae side of liberty and justice, to let 
 mankind know that we are not tn-ed 
 of our own institutions, and to pio- 
 test against the asserted power of alter- 
 ing at pleasure the law of the civilized 
 world? 
 
 But whatever we do in this respect, it 
 becomes us to do upon clear and con- 
 sistent principles. There is an impor- 
 tant topic in the message to which I have 
 yet hardly alluded. I mean the rumored 
 combiiuition of the European Conti- 
 nental sovereigns against the newly es- 
 tablished free states of South America. 
 Whatever position this government may 
 take on that subject, I trust it will be 
 one which can be defended on known 
 and acknowledged grounds of right. 
 The near approach or the remote dis- 
 tance of danger may aft'ect policy, but 
 cannot change principle. The saino 
 reason that would authorize us to pro- 
 test against unwarrantable combina- 
 tions to interfere between Spain and her 
 former colonies, would authorize u.s 
 equally to protest if the same combina- 
 tion were directed against the smallest 
 state in Europe, although our duty to 
 ourselves, our policy, and wisdom, might 
 indicate very different courses as fit to 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 67 
 
 ue pursued by us in the two cases. We 
 Bhall not, I trust, act upon the notion of 
 dividing the world with tlie Holy Alli- 
 ance, and complain of nothing done by 
 them in their hemisphere if they will 
 not interfere with ours. At least this 
 would not be such a course of policy as 
 I could recommend or support. We 
 have not offended, and I hope we do not 
 Litend tr> offend, in regard to South 
 America, against any principle of na- 
 tional independence or of public law. 
 We have done nothing, we shall do 
 nothing, that we need to hush up or to 
 compromise by forbearing to express 
 our sympathy for the cause of the Greeks, 
 or our opinion of the course which other 
 governments have adopted in regard to 
 them. 
 
 It may, in the next place, be asked, 
 perhaps. Supposing all this to be true, 
 uhat can we do? Are we to go to war? 
 Are we to interfere in the Greek cause, 
 or any other European cause? Are we 
 to endanger our pacific relations? No, 
 certainly not. What, then, the ques- 
 tion recurs, remains for us? If we will 
 not endanger our own peace, if we will 
 neither furnish armies nor navies to the 
 cause which we think the just one, what 
 is there within our power? 
 
 Sir, this reasoning mistakes the age. 
 The time has been, indeed, when fleets, 
 and armies, and subsidies, were the 
 principal reliances even in the best 
 cause. But, happily for mankind, a 
 great change has taken place in this re- 
 spect. Moral causes come into consid- 
 eration, in proportion as the progress of 
 knowledge is advanced; and the public 
 opinion of the civilized world is rapidly 
 gaining an ascendency over mere brutal 
 force. It is already able to oppose the 
 most formidable obstruction to the prog- 
 ress of injustice and oppression; and as 
 it grows more intelligent and more in- 
 tense, it will be more and more formi- 
 dable. It may be silenced by military 
 power, but it cannot be conquered. It 
 is elastic, irrepressible, and invulnerable 
 to the weapons of ordinary warfare. It 
 is that impassible, inextinguishable 
 enemy of mere violence and arbitrary 
 rule, which, like Milton's augeLs, 
 
 " Vital in everv part, .... 
 Cannot, but by annihilating, die." 
 
 Until this be propitiated or satisfied, 
 it is vain for power to talk either of 
 triumphs or of repose. No matter what 
 fields are desolated, what fortresses sur- 
 rendered, what armies subdued, or what 
 provinces overrun. In the history of 
 the year that has passed by us, and in 
 the instance of unhappy Spain, we have 
 seen the vanity of all triumphs in a 
 cause which violates the general sense 
 of justice of the civilized world. It is 
 nothing that the troops of France have 
 passed from the Pyrenees to Cadiz; it 
 is nothing that an unhappy and prostrate 
 nation has fallen before them; it is 
 nothing that arrests, and confiscation, 
 and execution, sweep away the little 
 remnant of national resistance. There 
 is an enemy that still exists to check the 
 glory of these triumphs. It follows the 
 conqueror back to the very scene of his 
 ovations; it calls upon him to take no- 
 tice that Europe, though silent, is yet 
 indignant; it shows him that the sceptre 
 of his victory is a barren sceptre; that it 
 shall confer neither joy nor honor, but 
 shall moulder to dry ashes in his gi'asp. 
 In the midst of his exultation, it pierces 
 his ear with the cry of injured justice; 
 it denounces against him the indigna- 
 tion of an enlightened and civilized age ; 
 it turns to bitterness the cup of liis re- 
 joicing, and wounds him with the sting 
 which belongs to the consciousness of 
 having outraged the opinion of man- 
 kind. 
 
 In my opinion, Sir, the Spanish na- 
 tion is now nearer, not only in point of 
 time, but in point of circumstance, to 
 the acquisition of a regulated govern- 
 ment, than at the moment of the French 
 invasion. Nations must, no doubt, un- 
 dergo these trials in their progress to 
 the establishment of free institutions. 
 The very trials benefit them, and render 
 them more capable both of obtaining 
 and of enjoying the object which they 
 seek. 
 
 I shall not detain the committee. Sir, 
 by laying before it any statistical, geo- 
 graphical, or commercial account of 
 Greece. I have no knowledge on these 
 
68 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 subjects which is nol common to all. 
 It is universally admitted, that, within 
 the last thirty or forty yoars, tlie condi- 
 tion of Greece has been greatly im- 
 proved. Her marine Ls at present re- 
 spectable, containing the best sailors in 
 the Mediterranean, better even, in that 
 sea. than our own. as more accustomed 
 to the long quarantines and other regu- 
 lations which prevail in its ports. The 
 number of her seamen has been esti- 
 mated as high as 50,000, but I suppose 
 that estimate must be much too large. 
 She has, probably, 150,000 tons of ship- 
 ping. It is not easy to ascertain the 
 amount of the Greek population. The 
 Turkish government does not trouble 
 itself with any of the calculations of 
 political economy, and there has never 
 been such a thing as an accurate census, 
 probably, in any part of the Turkish 
 empire. In the absence of all official 
 information, private opinions widely dif- 
 fer. By the tables which have been 
 communicated, it would seem that there 
 are 2,400,000 Greeks in Greece proper 
 and the islands; an amount, as I am 
 inclined to think, somewhat overrated. 
 There are, probably, in the whole of 
 European Turkey, 5,000,000 Greeks, 
 and 2,000,000 more in the Asiatic do- 
 minions of that power. 
 
 The moral and intellectual progress 
 of this numerous population, under the 
 horrible oppression which cinishes it, has 
 been such as may well excite regard. 
 Slaves, under barbarous masters, the 
 Greeks have still aspired after the bless- 
 ings of knowledge and civilization. Be- 
 fore tlie breaking out of the present 
 revolution, they had established schools, 
 and colleges, and libraries, and the 
 press. Wherever, as in Scio, owing to 
 particular circumstances, the weiglit of 
 oppression was mitigated, the natural 
 vivacity of the Greeks, and tlieir apti- 
 tufle for the arts, were evinced. Though 
 certainly not on an equality with the 
 civilized and Christian states of Europe, 
 — and how is it possible, under such 
 opi)re.ssion as they endured, that tliey 
 should be? — they yet furnished a strik- 
 ing contrast with their Tartar masters. 
 It lias been well said, that it is not easy 
 
 to form a ju.st conception of the natura 
 of the desjx)tism exercised over them. 
 Conquest and subjugation, as known 
 among European states, are inadequate 
 modes of expression by which to denote 
 the dominion of the Turks. A conquest 
 in the civilized world is generiily no 
 more than an acquisition of a new do- 
 minion to the conquering coiuitry. It 
 does not imply a never-ending bondage 
 imposed ufxinthe conquered, a perpetual 
 mark, — an opprobrious distinction be- 
 tween them and their masters; a bitter 
 and unending persecution of their relig- 
 ion; an habitual violation of their rights 
 of person and property, and the unre- 
 strained indulgence towards them of 
 every passion which belongs to the char- 
 acter of a barbarous soldiery. Yet 
 such is the state of Greece. The Otto- 
 man power over them, obtained original- 
 ly by the sword, is constantly preserved 
 by the same means. Wherever it exists, 
 it is a mere military power. The relig- 
 ious and civil code of the state being 
 both fixed in the Koran, and equally the 
 object of an ignorant and furious faith, 
 have been found equally incapable of 
 change. " The Turk," it has been said, 
 " has been encamped in Europe for four 
 centuries." He has hardly any more 
 participation in European manners, 
 knowledge, and arts, than when he 
 crossed the Bospliorus. But this is not 
 the worst. The power of the empire is 
 falliMi into anarchy, and as the principle 
 which belongs to the head belongs also 
 to the parts, there are as many despots 
 as there are pachas, beys, and viziers. 
 "Wars are almost perpetual between tlie 
 Sultan and some rebellious governor of 
 a province ; and in the conflict of these 
 despotisms, the people are necess;nily 
 ground between the upper and the nether 
 millstone. In short, the Christian sub- 
 jects of the Sublime Porte feel daily all 
 the miseries which flow from despotism, 
 from anarchy, from slavery, and from 
 religious persecution. If any thing yet 
 remains to heighten such a picture, let 
 it be added, that every office in the 
 government is not only actually, but 
 professedly, venal, — the pachalics, the 
 vizierates, the cadiships, and whatsoever 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 69 
 
 other denomination may denote the de- 
 positary of power. In the wliole world, 
 iSir, there is no such oppression felt as 
 by the Christian Greeks. In various 
 parts of India, to be sure, the govern- 
 ment is bad enough ; but then it is the 
 gi vernment of barbarians over barbari- 
 ans, and the feeling of oppression is, of 
 coui'se, not so keen . There the oppressed 
 are perhaps not better than their oppres- 
 sors; but in the case of Greece, there are 
 nullio:iS of Christian men, not without 
 knowledge, not without refinement, not 
 witliout a strong thirst for all the pleas- 
 ures of civilized life, trampled into the 
 very earth, century after century, by a 
 pillaging, savage, relentless soldiery. 
 Sir, the case is unique. There exists, 
 and has existed, nothing like it. The 
 world has no such misery to show; there 
 is no case in which Christian communi- 
 ties can be called upon with such em- 
 phasis of appeal. 
 
 But I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, 
 indeed I need have said nothing to 
 satisfy the House, that it must be some 
 new combination of circumstances, or 
 new views of policy in the cabinets of 
 Europe, which have caused this interest- 
 ing struggle not merely to be regarded 
 with indifference, but to be marked with 
 opprobrium. The very statement of the 
 caje, as a contest between the Turks and 
 Greeks, sufficiently indicates what must 
 be the feeling of every individual, and 
 every government, that is not biassed by 
 a particular interest, or a particular feel- 
 ing, to disregard tlie dictates of justice 
 and humanity. 
 
 And now. Sir, what has been the con- 
 duct pursued by the Allied Powers in 
 rejrard to this contest? "When the revo- 
 lution broke out, the sovereigns were 
 assembled in congress at Laybach ; and 
 the papers of that assembly sufficiently 
 manifest their sentiments. They pro- 
 claim tlieir abhorrence of those " crimi- 
 nal combinations which had been formed 
 in the eastern parts of Europe"; and, 
 although it is possible that this denun- 
 ciation was aimed, more particularly, 
 at the disturbances in the provinces of 
 Wallachia and Moldavia, yet no excep- 
 tion is made, from its general terms, in 
 
 favor of those events in Greece which 
 were properly the commencement of her 
 revolution, and which could not but be 
 well known at Laybach, before tlie date 
 of these declarations. Now it must be 
 remembered, that Russia was a leading 
 party in this denunciation of the efforts 
 of the Greeks to achieve their libera- 
 tion; and it cannot but be expected by 
 Russia, that the world should also re- 
 member what part she herself has here- 
 tofore acted in the same concern. It is 
 notorious, that within the last half-cen- 
 tury she has again and again excited the 
 (xreeks to rebellion against the Porte, 
 and that she has constantly kept alive in 
 them the hope that she would, one day, 
 by her own great power, break the yoke 
 of their oppressor. Indeed, the earnest 
 attention with which Russia has regarded 
 Greece goes much farther back than to 
 the time I have mentioned. Ivan the 
 Third, in 1482, having espoused a Gre- 
 cian princess, heiress of the last Greek 
 F^niperor, discarded St. George from the 
 Russian arms, and adopted the Greek 
 two-headed black eagle, which has con- 
 tinued in the Russian arms to the pres- 
 ent day. In virtue of the same marriage, 
 tlie Russian princes claim the Greek 
 throne as their inheritance. 
 
 Under Peter the Great, the policy of 
 Russia developed itself more fully. la 
 1696, he rendered himself master of 
 Azof, and, in 1098, obtained the right to 
 pass the Dardanelles, and to maintain, 
 by that route, commercial intercourse 
 with the Mediterranean. He had emissa- 
 ries tlu'oughout Greece, and particularly 
 applied himself to gain the clergy. He 
 adopted the Laharum of Constantine, 
 "In hoc signo vinces"; and medals 
 were struck, with the inscription, "Pe- 
 trus I. Russo- Grsecorum Imperator." 
 In whatever new direction the princi- 
 ples of the Holy Alliance may now lead 
 the politics of Russia, or whatever course 
 she may suppose Christianity now pre- 
 scribes to her, in regard to the Greek 
 cause, the time has been when she pro- 
 fessed to be contending for that cause, 
 as identified with Christianity. Tho 
 white banner under which the soldiers 
 of Peter the First usually fought, bore, 
 
70 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GKEECE. 
 
 as its inscription, ** In the name of the 
 Prince, and for our country." Relying 
 on the aid of the Greeks, in his war 
 with the Porte, he changed the white 
 flag to red, and displayed on it the words, 
 "In the name of God, and for Christi- 
 anity." The unfortunate issue of this 
 war is well known. Though Anue and 
 Elizabeth, the successors of Peter, did 
 not possess his active character, they 
 kept up a constant communication with 
 Greece, and held out hopes of restoring 
 the Greek empire. Catharine the Sec- 
 ond, as is well known, excited a general 
 revolt in 1769. A Russian fleet ap- 
 peared in the Mediterranean, and a Rus- 
 sian army was landed in the Morea. 
 The Greeks in the end were disgusted 
 at being expected to take an oath of alle- 
 giance to Russia, and the Empress was 
 disgusted because they refused to take 
 it. In 177-4, peace was signed between 
 Russia and the Porte, and the Greeks of 
 the ^lorea were left to their fate. By 
 this treaty the Porte acknowledged the 
 independence of the Khan of the Crimea; 
 a preliminary step to the acquisition of 
 that country by Russia. ' It is not un- 
 worthy of remark, as a circumstance 
 which distinguished this from most 
 other diplomatic transactions, that it 
 conceded to the cabinet of St. Peters- 
 burg tlie right of intervention in the 
 interior affairs of Turkey, in regard 
 to whatever concerned the religion of 
 the Greeks. The cruelties and massa- 
 cres that happened to the Greeks after 
 the peace between Russia and the Porte, 
 notwithstanding the general pardon 
 which had been stipulated for them, 
 need not now be recited. Instead of 
 retracing the deplorable picture, it is 
 enough to say, that in this respect tlie 
 past is justly reflected in the present. 
 The Empress soon after invaded and 
 ^onquered the Crimea, and on one of the 
 gates of Kerson, its capital, caused to 
 be inscribed, " The road to Byzantium." 
 The present Emperor, on his accession 
 to the throne, manifested an intention 
 to adopt the policy of Catharine tlie 
 Second as his own, and the world has 
 not been ri;j;ht in all its suspicions, if a 
 projefit for the partition of Turkey did 
 
 not form a part of the negotiations of 
 Napoleon and Alexander at Tilsit. 
 
 AH this course of policy seems sud- 
 denly to be changed. Turkey is no 
 longer regarded, it would appear, as an 
 object of partition or acquisition, and 
 Greek revolts have all at once become, 
 according to the declaration of Laybach, 
 "criminal combinations." The recent 
 congress at Verona exceeded its prede- 
 cessor at Laybach in its denunciations of 
 the Greek struggle. In the circular of 
 the 14th of December, 1822, it declared 
 the Grecian resistance to the Turkish 
 power to be rash and culpable, and la- 
 mented that "the firebrand of rebel- 
 lion had been thrown into the Otto- 
 man empire." This rebuke and crimi- 
 nation we know to have proceeded on 
 those settled principles of conduct which 
 the Continental powers had prescribed 
 for themselves. The sovereigns saw, as 
 well as others, the real condition of the 
 Greeks; they knew as well as others 
 that it was most natural and most justi- 
 fiable, that they should endeavor, at 
 whatever hazard, to change that condi- 
 tion. They knew that they themselves, 
 or at least one of them, had more than 
 once urged the Greeks to similar efforts; 
 that they themselves had thrown the 
 same firebrand into the midst of the 
 Ottoman empire. And yet, so much 
 does it seem to be their fixed object to 
 discountenance whatsoever threatens to 
 disturb the actual government of any 
 country, that. Christians as tliey were, 
 and allied, as they professed to be, for 
 purposes most important to human hap- 
 piness and religion, they have not hesi- 
 tated to declare to the world that they 
 have wholly forborne to exercise any 
 compassion to the Greeks, simply be- 
 cause they thought that they saw, in the 
 struggles of the Morea, the sign of revo- 
 lution. This, then, is coming to a plain, 
 practical result. The Grecian revolution 
 has been discouraged, discountenanced, 
 and denounced, solely because it is a 
 revolution. Independent of all inquiry 
 into the reasonableness of its causes or 
 the enormity of the oppression which 
 produced it; regardless of the peculiar 
 claims which Greece possesses upon the 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 71 
 
 civilized world; and regardless of what 
 has been their own conduct towards her 
 for a century; regardless of the interest 
 of the Christian religion, — the sover- 
 eigns at Verona seized upon the case of 
 the Greek revolution as one above all 
 others calculated to illustrate the fixed 
 principles of their policy. The abomi- 
 nable rule of the Porte on one side, the 
 value and the sufferings of the Christian 
 Greeks on the other, furnished a case 
 likely to convince even an incredulous 
 world of the sincerity of the professions 
 of the Allied Powers. They embraced 
 the occasion with apparent ardor: and 
 the world, I trust, is satisfied. 
 
 We see here, IMr. Chairman, the 
 direct and actual application of that 
 system which I have attempted to de- 
 scribe. We see it in the very case of 
 Greece. ^V'e learn, authentically and 
 indisputably, that the Allied Powers, 
 holding that all changes in legislation 
 and administration ought to proceed 
 from kings alone, were wholly inexora- 
 ble to the sufferings of the Greeks, and 
 entirely hostile to their success. Now 
 it is upon this practical lesult of the 
 principle of the Continental powers that 
 I wish this House to intimate its opin- 
 ion. The great question is a question 
 of principle. Greece is only the signal 
 instance of the application of that prin- 
 ciple. If the principle be right, if we 
 esteem it conformable to the law of na- 
 tions, if we have nothing to say against 
 it, or if we deem ourselves unfit to ex- 
 press an opinion on the subject, then, of 
 course, no resolution ought to pass. If, 
 on the other hand, we see in the declara- 
 tions of the Allied Powers principles, not 
 only utterly hostile to our own free insti- 
 tutions, but hostile also to the inde- 
 pendence of all nations, and altogether 
 opposed to the nnprovement of the can- 
 dition of human nature; if, in the in- 
 stance before us, we see a most striking 
 exposition and application of those prin- 
 ciples, and if we deem our opinions to 
 be entitled to any weight in the estima- 
 tion of mankind, — then I think it is 
 our duty to adopt some such measure 
 as the proposed resolution. 
 
 It is worthy of observation, Sir, that 
 
 as early as July, 1821, Baron .Strogonoff, 
 the Russian minister at Constantinople, 
 represented to the Porte, that, if the un- 
 distinguished massacres of the Greek.s, 
 both of such as were in open resistance 
 and of those who remained patient in 
 their submission were continued, and 
 should become a settled habit, they 
 would give just cause of war against the 
 Porte to all Christian states. This was 
 in 1821.^ It was followed, early in the 
 next year, by that indescribable enor- 
 mity, that appalling monument of bar- 
 barian cruelty, the destruction of Scio; 
 a scene I shall not attempt to describe; a 
 scene from which human nature shrinks 
 shuddering away; a scene having hardly 
 a parallel in the history of fallen man. 
 This scene, too, was quickly followed by 
 the massacres in Cyprus ; and all these 
 things were perfectly known to the 
 Christian powers assembled at Verona. 
 Yet these powers, instead of acting upon 
 the case supposed by Baron Strogonoff, 
 and which one would think had been 
 then fully made out, — instead of being 
 moved by any compassion for the suffer- 
 ings of the Greeks, — these powers, these 
 Christian powers, rebuke their gallantry 
 and insult their sufferings by accusing 
 them of " throwing a firebrand into the 
 Ottoman empire." Such, Sir, appear 
 to me to be the principles on which the 
 Continental powers of Europe have 
 agreed hereafter to act; and this, an 
 eminent instance of the application of 
 those principles. 
 
 I shall not detain the committee, Mr. 
 Chairman, by any attempt to recite the 
 events of the Greek struggle up to the 
 present time. Its origin may be found, 
 doubtless, in that improved state of 
 knowledge which, for some years, has 
 been gradually taking place in that 
 country. The emancipation of the 
 Greeks has been a subject frequently 
 discussed in modern times. They them- 
 selves are represented as having a vivid 
 remembrance of the distinction of their 
 ancestors, not unmixed with an indig- 
 nant feeling that civilized and Christian 
 Europe should not ere now have aided 
 
 1 Annual Register for 1821, p. 251. 
 
72 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 them in breaking their intolerable 
 fetters. 
 
 In 1816 a society was founded in 
 Vienna for the encouragement of Gre- 
 cian literature. It was connected with 
 H similar institution at Athens, and 
 another in Thessaly, called the " Gym- 
 nasium of Mount Pelion." The treas- 
 ury and general office of the institution 
 wei-e established at Munich. No politi- 
 cal object was avowed by these insti- 
 tutions, probably none contemplated. 
 Still, however, they had their effect, no 
 doubt, in hastening that condition of 
 things in which the Greeks felt compe- 
 tent to the e.stablishment of their inde- 
 pendence. Many young men have been 
 for years annually sent to the universi- 
 ties in the western states of Europe for 
 their education; and, after the general 
 pacification of Europe, many military 
 men, discharged from other employ- 
 ment, were ready to enter even into so 
 unpromising a service as that of the 
 revolutionary Greeks. 
 
 In 1820, war commenced between the 
 Porte and Ali, the well-known Pacha of 
 Albania. Differences existed also with 
 Persia and with Russia. In this state 
 of things, at the beginning of 1821, 
 an insurrection broke out in Moldavia, 
 under the direction of Alexander Ypsi- 
 lanti, a well-educated soldier, who had 
 been major-general in the Russian 
 6ervice. From his character, and the 
 number of those who seemed inclined to 
 join him, he was supposed to be coun- 
 tenanced by the court of St. Petersburg. 
 This, however, was a great mistake, 
 which the Emperor, then at Laybach, 
 took an early opj)ortunity to rectify. 
 The Turki-sh government was alarmed 
 at these occurrences in the northern 
 pi evinces of European Turkey, and 
 caused search to be made of all vessels 
 entering the Black Sea, lest arras or 
 >ther military means should be sent in 
 that manner to the insurgents. This 
 proved inconvenient to the commerce of 
 Russia, and caused some unsatisfactory 
 correspondence between the two powers. 
 It may be worthy of remark, as an 
 exhibition of national character, that, 
 agitated by these ajipearances of intes- 
 
 tine commotion, the Sultan issued a 
 proclamation, calling on all time Mu.s- 
 sulmans to renounce the pleasures of 
 social life, to prepare arms and horses, 
 and to return to the manner of their 
 ancestors, the life of the plains. The 
 Turk seems to have thought that he had, 
 at last, caught something of the dangei-- 
 ous contagion of European civilization, 
 and tiiat it was necessary to reform 
 his habits, by recurring to the original 
 manners of militai-y roving barbarians. 
 It was about this time, that is to say, 
 at the commencement of 1821, that 
 the revolution burst out in various parts 
 of Greece and the isles. Circumstances, 
 certainly, were not unfavorable to the 
 movement, as one portion of the Turk- 
 ish army was employed in the war 
 against Ali Pacha in Albania, and an- 
 other part in the provinces north of the 
 Danube. Tiie Greeks soon possessed 
 themselves of the open country of tlie 
 Morea, and drove their enemy into the 
 fortresses. Of these, that of Tripolitza, 
 with the city, fell into their haiuls, in 
 the course of the summer. Having 
 after these first movements obtained 
 time to bi-eathe, it became, of course, 
 an early object to establish a govern- 
 ment. For this purpose delegates ol 
 the people assembled, under that name 
 which describes the assembly in which 
 we ourselves sit, that name which 
 "freed the Atlantic," a Congress. A 
 writer, who undertakes to render to the 
 civilized world that sen-ice which was 
 once performed by Edmund Burke, I 
 mean the compiler of the English An- 
 nual Register, asks, by what authority 
 this assembly could call itself a Con- 
 gress. Simply, Sir, by the same au- 
 tliority by wliich the people of the 
 United States have given the same 
 name to their own legislature. We, at 
 least, should be naturally inclined to 
 think, not only as far a.** names, but 
 things al.so, are concerned, tliat the 
 Greeks could hardly have begun their 
 revolution under bett<^r auspices; since 
 they have endeavored to render ajiplica- 
 ble to themselves the general principles 
 of our form of government, as well as 
 its name. This constitution went into 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 73 
 
 operation at the commencement of the 
 next year. In tlie mean time, the war 
 with Ali Paclia was ended, he having 
 sunendcred, and being afterwards as- 
 sassinated, by an instance of treachery 
 and perfidy, which, if it had happened 
 elsewhere than under the government of 
 the Turlis, would have desei-ved notice. 
 The negotiation with Russia, too, took 
 a turn unfavorable to the Greeks. The 
 great point upon which Russia insisted, 
 beside the abandonment of the measure 
 of searching vessels bound to the Black 
 Sea, was, that tiie Porte should with- 
 draw its armies from the neighborhood 
 of the Russian frontiers; and the imme- 
 diate consequence of this, when effected, 
 was to add so much more to the disposa- 
 ble force ready to be employed against 
 the Greeks. These events seemed to 
 have left the whole force of the Ottoman 
 empire, at the commencement of 1822, 
 in a condition to be employed against 
 the Greek rebellion ; and, accordingly, 
 very many anticipated the immediate 
 destruction of the cause. The event, 
 however, was ordered otherwise. Where 
 the greatest effort was made, it was met 
 and defeated. Entering the Morea with 
 an army which seemed capable of bear- 
 ing down all resistance, the Tui-ks were 
 nevertheless defeated and driven back, 
 and pursued beyond the isthmus, within 
 which, as far as it appears, from that 
 time to the present, they have not been 
 able to set their foot. 
 
 It was in April of this year that the 
 destruction of Scio took place. That 
 island, a sort of appanage of the Sul- 
 tana mother, enjoyed many privileges 
 peculiar to itself. In a population of 
 130,000 or 140,000, it had no more than 
 2,000 or 3,000 Turks; indeed, by some 
 accounts, not near as many. The ab- 
 sence of these ruffian masters had in 
 some degree allowed opportunity for tlie 
 promotion of knowledge, the accumula- 
 tion of wealth, and the general cultiva- 
 tion of society. Here was the seat of 
 modern Greek literature; here were 
 libraries, printing-presses, and other es- 
 tablishments, which indicate .some ad- 
 vancement in refinement and knowledge. 
 Certain of the inhabitants of Samos, it 
 
 M-ould seem, envious of this comparative 
 haiipiness of Scio, landed u]»)\i tin- isl- 
 and in an irregular multitude, for the 
 purpo.se of compelling its inhabitants to 
 make common cause with their country- 
 men against their oppressors. These, 
 being joined by the peasantry, marched 
 to the city and drove the Turks into the 
 castle. The Turkish fleet, lately rein- 
 forced from Egypt, happened to be in 
 the neighboring seas, and, learning 
 these events, landed a force on the isl- 
 and of fifteen thousand men. There 
 was nothing to resist such an army. 
 These troops immediately entered the 
 city and began an indiscriminate mas- 
 sacre. The city was fired; and in four 
 days the fire and sword of the Turk ren- 
 dered the beautiful Scio a clotted mass 
 of blood and ashes. The details are too 
 shocking to be recited. Forty thousand 
 women and children, unhappily saved 
 from the general destruction , were after- 
 wards sold in the market of Smyrna, 
 and sent off into distant and hopele.ss 
 servitude. Even on the wharves of our 
 own cities, it has been said, have been 
 sold the utensils of those hearths which 
 now exist no longer. Of the whole 
 population which I have mentioned, not 
 above nine hundred persons were left 
 living upon the island. I will only 
 rejieat, Sir, that these ti'agical scenes 
 were as fully known at the Congress of 
 Verona, as they are now known to us; 
 and it is not too much to call on the 
 powers that constituted that congress, 
 in the name of conscience and in the 
 name of humanity, to tell us if there be 
 nothing even in these unparalleled ex- 
 cesses of Turkish barbarity to excite a 
 sentiment of compassion ; nothing which 
 they regard as so objectionable as even 
 the very idea of popular resistance to 
 power. 
 
 The events of the year which has just 
 passed by, as far as they have become 
 known to us, have been even more favor- 
 able to the Greeks than those of the 
 year preceding. J omit all details, as 
 being as well known to others as to my- 
 self. Suffice it to say, that with no other 
 enemy to contend with, and no diversion 
 of his force to other objects, the Porte 
 
74 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 has not been able tx3 carry the war into 
 the Morea; and that, by the last ac- 
 counts, its armies were acting defensively 
 in Thessaly. I pass over, also, the naval 
 engagements of the Greeks, although 
 that is a mode of warfare in which they 
 are calculated to excel, and in which 
 the} have already performed actions of 
 Buch distinguished skill and bravery, as 
 would draw applause upon the best 
 mar./iers in the world. The present 
 state of the war would seem to be, that 
 the Gieeks possess the whole of the 
 Morea with the exception of the three 
 fortresses of Patras, Coron, and Modon; 
 all Candia, but one fortress; and most 
 of the other islands. They possess the 
 citadel of Athens, Missolonghi, and sev- 
 eral other places in Livadia. They 
 have been able to act on the offensive, 
 and to carry the war beyond the isthmus. 
 There is no reason to believe their ma- 
 rine is weakened; more probably, it is 
 strengthened. But, what is most impor- 
 tant of all, they have obtained time and 
 experience. They have awakened a sym- 
 pathy throughout Europe and through- 
 out America; and they have formed a 
 government which seems suited to the 
 emergency of their condition. 
 
 Sir, they have done much. It would 
 be gi-eat injustice to compare their 
 achievements with our own. We began 
 our Revolution, already possessed of 
 government, and, comparatively, of civil 
 liberty. Our ancestors had from the 
 first been accustomed in a great measure 
 to govern themselves. Thi^y were famil- 
 iar with popular elections and legislative 
 assemblies, and well acquainted with the 
 general principles and practice of free 
 governments. I'hey had little else to do 
 than to throw off the paramount author- 
 ity of the parent state. Enough was 
 still left, both of law and of organiza- 
 tion, to conduct society in its accustomed 
 course, and to unite men together for a 
 common object. The Greeks, of course, 
 could act with little concert at the be- 
 ginning; they were unaccust<3ined to the 
 exercise of power, without experience, 
 with limited knowledge, without aid, 
 and surrounded by nations which, what- 
 ever claims the Greeks might seem to 
 
 have upon them, have afforded them 
 nolhins: but discouragement and re- 
 proach. They have held out, however, 
 for three campaigns; and that, at least, 
 is something. Constantinople and the 
 northern provinces have sent forth thou- 
 sands of troops; — they have been de- 
 feated. Tripoli, and Algiers, and Egypt, 
 have contributed their marine contin- 
 gents; — they have not kept the ocean. 
 Hordes of Tartars have crossed the Bo.s- 
 phorus; — they have died where the 
 Persians died. The powerful monar- 
 chies in the neighborhood have de- 
 nounced their cause, and admonished 
 them to abandon it and submit to their 
 fate. They have answered them, that, 
 although two hundred thousand of their 
 countrymen have offered up their lives, 
 there yet remain lives to offer; and that 
 it is the determination of all, " yes, of 
 ALL," to persevere until they shall have 
 established their liberty, or until the 
 power of their oppressors shall have re- 
 lieved them from the burden of exist- 
 ence. 
 
 It may now be asked, perhaps, whether 
 the expression of our own sympathy, and 
 that of the country, may do them good? 
 I liope it may. It may give them cour- 
 age and spirit, it may assure them of 
 public regarcf, teach them that they are 
 not wholly forgotten by the civilizi'd 
 world, and inspire them with constancy 
 in the pursuit of their great end. At 
 any rate. Sir, it appears to me that the 
 measure which I have proposed is due 
 to our own character, and called for by 
 our own duty. When we shall have 
 discharged that duty, we may leave the 
 rest to the disposition of Proviilence. 
 
 I do not see how it can be doubted 
 that this measiue is entirely pacific. I 
 profess my inability to perceive that it 
 has any possible tendency to involve our 
 neutral relations. If the resolution i>ass, 
 it is not of necessity to be immediately 
 acted on. It will not be acted on at all, 
 unless, in the opinion of the President, 
 a proper and safe occasion for acting 
 upon it shall arise. If we adopt the 
 resolution to-day, our relations with 
 every foreign state will bo to-morrow 
 precisely what they now are The re.so 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 76 
 
 lution will be sufficient to express our 
 seatiiiients on the subjects to which I 
 have adverted. Useful for that purpose, 
 it can be mischievous for no purpose. 
 If the topic were properly introduced 
 into the message, it cannot be improperly 
 introduced into discussion in this House. 
 If t were proper, which no one doubts, 
 ijr the President to express his opinions 
 upon it, it cannot, I think, be improper 
 for us to express ours. The only certain 
 effect of this resolution is to signify, in 
 a form usual in bodies constituted like 
 this, our approbation of the general 
 eentiinent of the message. Do we wish 
 to withhold that approbation? The res- 
 olution confers on the President no new 
 power, nor does it enjoin on him the 
 exercise of any new duty; nor does it 
 hasten him in the discharge of any exist- 
 ing duty. 
 
 I cannot imagine that this resolution 
 can add any thing to those excitements 
 which it has been supposed, I think very 
 causelessly, might possibly provoke the 
 Turkish government to acts of hostility. 
 There is already the message, expressing 
 the hope of success to the Greeks and 
 disaster to the Turks, in a much stronger 
 manner than is to be implied from the 
 terms of this resolution. There is the 
 correspondence between the Secretary of 
 State and the Greek Agent in London, 
 already made public, in which similar 
 wishes are expressed, and a continuance 
 of the correspondence apparently in- 
 vited. I might add to this, the unex- 
 ampled burst of feeling which this cause 
 has called forth from all classes of so- 
 ciety, and the notorious fact of pecuniary 
 contributions made thi'oughout the coun- 
 try for its aid and advancement. After 
 all this, whoever can see cause of danger 
 to our pacific relations from the adoption 
 of this resolution has a keener vision 
 than I can pretend to. Sir, there is no 
 augmented danger; there is no danger. 
 The question comes at last to this, 
 whether, on a subject of this sort, this 
 House holds an opinion which is worthy 
 to be expressed. 
 
 Even suppose. Sir, an agent or com- 
 missioner were to be immediately sent, 
 — a measure which I myself believe to 
 
 ue the proper one, — there is no breach 
 of neutrality, nor any just cause of 
 offence. Such an agent, of course, 
 would not be accredited; he would not 
 be a public minister. The object would 
 be inquiry and information; inquiry 
 which we have a right to make, infor- 
 mation which we are interested to pos- 
 sess. If a dismemberment of the Turkish 
 empire be taking place, or has already 
 taken place ; if a new state be rising, or 
 be already risen, in the Mediterranean, — 
 who can doubt, that, without any breach 
 of neutrality, we may inform ourselves 
 of these events for the government of 
 our own concerns? The Greeks have 
 declared the Turkish coasts in a state of 
 blockade; may we not inform ourselve.i 
 whether this blockade be nominal or 
 reaU and, of course, whether it shall be 
 regarded or disregarded? The greater 
 our trade may happen to be with Smyrna, 
 a consideration which seems to have 
 alarmed some gentlemen, the greater is 
 the reason, in my opinion, why we 
 should seek to be accurately informed 
 of those events which may affect its 
 safety. It seems to me impossible, 
 therefore, for any reasonable man to 
 imagine that this resolution can exj^ose 
 us to the resentment of the Sublime 
 Porte. 
 
 As little reason is there for fearing its 
 consequences upon the conduct of the 
 Allied Powers. They may, very natu- 
 rally, dislike our sentiments upon the 
 subject of the Greek revolution; but 
 what those sentiments are they will 
 much more explicitly learn in the Pres- 
 ident's message than in this resolution. 
 They might, indeed, prefer that we 
 should express no dissent from the doc- 
 trines which they have avowed, and the 
 application which they have made of 
 tliose doctrines to the case of Greece. 
 But I trust we are not disposed to leave 
 them in any doubt as to our sentiments 
 upon these important subjects. They 
 have expressed their opinions, and do 
 not call that expression of opinion an 
 interference; in which re.'^pect they are 
 right, as the expression of ojnnion in 
 such cases is not such an interference as 
 would justify the Greeks in considering 
 
76 
 
 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 
 
 the powers at war with them. For the 
 same reason, any expression which we 
 may make of different principles and 
 different sympatliies is no interference. 
 Xo one would call the President's mes- 
 sage an interference; and yet it is much 
 stronger in that respect than this reso- 
 lution. If either of them could be con- 
 strued to be an interference, no doubt it 
 would be improper, at least it would be 
 so according to my view of the subject; 
 for the very thing which I have at- 
 tempted to resist in the course of these 
 observations is the right of foreign inter- 
 ference. But neither the message nor 
 the resolution has that character. There 
 is not a power in Europe which can sup- 
 pose, that, in expressing our opinions on 
 this occasion, we are governed by any 
 desire of aggrandizing ourselves or of 
 injuring others. We do no more than 
 to maintain those established principles 
 in which we have an interest in common 
 with other nations, and to resist the in- 
 troduction of new principles and new 
 rules, calculated to destroy the relative 
 independence of states, and particularly 
 hostile to the whole fabric of our gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 I close, then. Sir, with repeating, that 
 tlie object of this resolution is to avail 
 ourselves of the interesting occasion of 
 
 the Greek revolution to make our prt>- 
 test against the doctrines of the Allied 
 Powers, both as they are laid down in 
 principle and as they are applied iu 
 practice. I think it right, too, Sir, not 
 to be unseasonable in the expression of 
 our regard, and, as far as that goes, in 
 a manifestation of our sympathy with a 
 long oppressed and now struggling peo- 
 ple. I am not of those who would, in 
 the hour of utmost peril, withhold such 
 encouragement as might be properly and 
 lawfully given, and, when the crisis 
 should be past, overwhelm the rescued 
 sufferer with kindness and caresses. 
 The Greeks address the civilized world 
 with a pathos not easy to be resisted. 
 They invoke our favor by more moving 
 considerations than can well belong to 
 the condition of any other people. They 
 stretch out their arms to the Christian 
 communities of the earth, beseeching 
 them, by a generous recollection of their 
 ancestors, by the consideration of their 
 desolated and ruined cities and villages, 
 by their wives and children sold into an 
 accursed slavery, by their blood, which 
 they seem willing to pour out like water, 
 by the common faith, and in the name, 
 which unites all Christians, tliat they 
 would extend to them at least somo token 
 of compassionate regard. 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 k SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE ROUSE OF REPRESENTATIVEa OF THE 
 UNITED STATES, ON THE IsT AND 2d OF APRIL, 1821 
 
 [At an early period of the session of Con- 
 gress of 18'2;)-24 a bill was introduced into 
 the House of Ht'presfntatives to amend tiie 
 several acts hiving duties on imports. The 
 object of the bill was a comprehensive re- 
 vision of the existing laws, with a view to 
 the extension of the protective system. The 
 bill became the subject of a protracted de- 
 bate, in which much of the talent of the 
 House on both sides was engaged. Mr. 
 Webster took an active part in the discus- 
 sion, and si)()ke upon many of the details of 
 the bill, while it remained in the committee 
 of the whole House on the state of the 
 Union. Several objectionable provisions 
 were removed, and various amendments 
 were introduced upon his motion ; and it 
 was a matter of regret to him, as seen in 
 the following speech, that the friends of tlie 
 bill were not able or willing to bring it into 
 a form in which, as a whole, he could give 
 it his support. On the 30th and 31st of 
 March, ilr. Clay, Speaker of the House, 
 addressed the committee of the whole, at 
 length and with great ability, on the gen- 
 eral princii)lcs of the bill ; and he was suc- 
 ceeded by Mr. Webster, on the 1st and 2d 
 of April, in the following speech.] 
 
 Mr. Chairm.\x, — I will avail my- 
 self of the present occasion to make 
 some remarks on certain principles and 
 opinions which have been recently ad- 
 vanced, and on those considerations 
 wliich, in my judgment, ought to gov- 
 ern us in deciding upon the several and 
 ^spective parts of this very important 
 and complex measure. I can truly say 
 that this is a painful duty. I deeply re- 
 gret the necessity which is likely to be 
 imposed upon me of giving a general 
 affirmative or negative vote on the whole 
 of tlie bill. I cannot but think this 
 mode of proceeding liable to great objec- 
 
 tions. It exposes both those who sup- 
 port and those who oppose the measure 
 to very unjust and injurious misappre- 
 hensions. There may be good reasons 
 for favoring some of the provisions of 
 tl)e bill, and equally strong reasons for 
 opposing others; and these provisions do 
 not stand to each other in the relation of 
 principal and incident. If that were the 
 case, tliose who are in favor of the prin- 
 cipal might forego their opinions upon 
 incidental and subordinate provisions. 
 But the bill proposes enactments entirely 
 distinct and different from one another 
 in character and tendency. Some of it3 
 clauses are intended merely for revenue; 
 and of those which regard the protection 
 of home manufactures, one part stands 
 upon very different grounds fi-om those 
 of other parts. So that probably every 
 gentleman who may ultimately support 
 the bill will vote for much which 
 his judgment does not approve; and 
 those who oppose it will oppose some- 
 thing which they would very gladly sup- 
 port. 
 
 Being intrusted with the interests of 
 a district liighly commercial, and deeply 
 interested in manufactures also, I wish 
 to state my opinions on the present 
 measure, not as on a whole, for it has no 
 entire and homogeneous character, but 
 as on a collection of different enact- 
 ments, some of which meet my approba- 
 tion and some of which do not. 
 
 And allow me, Sir, in the first place, 
 to state my regret, if indeed I ought 
 not to express a warmer sentiment, at 
 
78 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 the names or designations which Mr. 
 Speaker ^ has seen fit to adopt for the 
 purpose of describing the advocates and 
 the opposers of the present bill. It is a 
 question, he says, between th"^ friends of 
 an "American policy" and .:hose of a 
 "foreign policy." This, Sir, is an as- 
 8 iniption which I take the liberty most 
 directly tx) deny. Mr. Speaker certainly 
 intended nothing invidious or deroga- 
 tory to any part of the House by this 
 mode of denominating friends and ene- 
 mies. But there is power in names, 
 and this manner of distinguishing those 
 who favor and those who oppose partic- 
 ular measures may lead to inferences to 
 which no member of the House can 
 submit. It may imply that there is a 
 more exclusive and peculiar regard to 
 American interests in one class of opin- 
 ions than in another. Such an impli- 
 cation is to be resisted and repelled. 
 Every member has a right to the pre- 
 sumption, that he pursues what he be- 
 lieves to be the interest of his country 
 with as sincere a zeal as any other mem- 
 ber. I claim this in my own case; and 
 while I shall not, for any purpose of de- 
 scription or convenient arrangement use 
 terms which may imply any disrespect 
 to other men's opinions, much less any 
 imputation upon other men's motives, 
 it is my duty to take care that the use of 
 such terms by others be not, against the 
 will of .those who adopt them, made to 
 produce a false impression. 
 
 Indeed, Sir, it is a little astonishing, 
 if it seemed convenient to Mr. Speaker, 
 for tlie purposes of distinction, to make 
 use of the terms " American policy " and 
 "foreign pojicy," that he should not 
 have applied them in a manner precisely 
 the reverse of that in whicli he has in 
 fact used them. If names are thought 
 necessary, it would be well enough, one 
 would tliink, that the name should be in 
 some measure descriptive of the thing; 
 and since Mr. Speaker denominates the 
 policy which he recommends "a new 
 policy in this country " ; since he speaks 
 of the present measure as a new era in 
 our legislation ; since he professes to in- 
 
 i Mr. Clay. 
 
 vite us to depart from our accustomed 
 course, to instruct ourselves by the wis- 
 dom of others, and to adopt the policy 
 of the most distinguished foreign states, 
 — one is a little curious to know with 
 what propriety of speech this imitation 
 of other nations is denominated an 
 " American policy," while, on the contra- 
 ry, a preference for our own established 
 system, as it now actually exists and 
 always has existed, is called a "foreign 
 policy." This favorite American policy 
 is what America has never tried; and 
 this odious foreign policy is what, as we 
 are told, foreign states have never pur- 
 sued. Sir, that is the truest American 
 policy which shall most usefully employ 
 American capital and American labor, 
 and best sustain the whole population. 
 "With me it is a fundamental axiom, it 
 is interwoven with aU my opinions, that 
 the great interests of the country are 
 united and inseparable; that agricul- 
 ture, commerce, and manufactures will 
 prosper together or languish together; 
 and that all legislation is dangerous 
 which proposes to benefit one of these 
 without looking to consequences which 
 may fall on the others. 
 
 Passing from this. Sir, I am bound to 
 say that Mr. Speaker began his able and 
 impressive speech at the proper point of 
 inquiry, — I mean the present state and 
 condition of the country, — although I 
 am so unfortunate, or rather although I 
 am so happy, as to differ from him very 
 widely in regard to that condition. I 
 dissent entirely from the justice of that 
 picture of distress which he has draA^^l. 
 I have not seen the reality, and know 
 not where it exists. Within my obser- 
 vation, there is no cause for so gloomy 
 and terrifying a representation. In re- 
 spect to tlie New England States, with 
 the condition of which I am of course 
 best acquainted, the present appears to 
 me a period of veiy general prosperity. 
 Not, indeed, a time for sudden acquisi- 
 tion and gi-eat profits, not a day of 
 extraordinary activity and successful 
 speculation. There is no doubt a con- 
 siderable depression of prices, and, in 
 some degree, a stagnation of business. 
 But the case presented by Mr. Speaker 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 7y 
 
 was not one of depi-e.^i^ion, but of distress ; 
 of universal, pervading, intense distress, 
 Ibnited to no class and to no place. We 
 are represented as on the very verge and 
 brink of national ruin. So far from ac- 
 quiescing in these opinions, I believe 
 there has been no period in which the 
 general prosperity was better secured, 
 or i-ested on a more solid foundation. 
 As applicable to the Eastern States, I 
 put this remark to their representatives, 
 and ask them if it is not true. AVhen 
 has there been a time in which the 
 means of living have been more accessi- 
 ble and more abundant? 'When has la- 
 bor been rewarded, I do not say with a 
 larger, but with a more certain success? 
 Profits, indeed, are low; in some pur- 
 suits of life, which it is not proposed to 
 benefit, but to burden, by this bill, veiy 
 low. But still I am unacquainted with 
 any proofs of extraordinary distress. 
 What, indeed, are the general indica- 
 tions of the state of the country? There 
 Ls no famine nor pestilence in the land, 
 nor war, nor desolation. There is no 
 writhing under the burden of taxation. 
 The means of subsistence are abundant; 
 and at the very moment when the mis- 
 erable condition of the country is as- 
 serted, it is admitted that the wages of 
 labor are high in comparison with those 
 of any other country. A country, then, 
 enjoying a profound peace, perfect civil 
 liberty, with the means of subsistence 
 cheap and abundant, with the reward of 
 labor sure, and its wages higher than 
 an}"w^liere else, cannot be represented as 
 in gloom, melancholy, and distress, but 
 by the effort of extraordinary powers of 
 tragedy. 
 
 Even if, in judging of this question, 
 we were to regard only those proofs to 
 which we have been referred, we shall 
 probably come to a conclusion somewhat 
 different from that which has been 
 drawn. Our exports, for example, al- 
 though certainly less than in some years, 
 were not, last year, so much below an 
 average formed upon the exports of a 
 series of years, and putting those ex- 
 ports at a fixed value, as might be sup- 
 posed. The value of the exports of 
 agricultural products, of animals, of the 
 
 products of the forest and of the sea, 
 together with gimpowder, spirits, and 
 sundry unenumerated articles, amounted 
 in the several years to the following 
 sums, viz. : — 
 
 In 1790, $27,716,152 
 
 1804, 33,842,316 
 
 1807, 38,465,854 
 
 Coming up now to our own times, 
 and taking the exports of the years 1821, 
 1822, and 1823, of the same articles and 
 products, at the same prices, they stand 
 thus : — 
 
 In 1821, ^5,643,175 
 
 1822, 48,782,295 
 
 1823, 55,863,491 
 
 Mr. Speaker has taken the very ex- 
 traordinary year of 1803, and, adding to 
 the exportation of that year what he 
 thinks ought to have been a just aug- 
 mentation, in jiroportion to the increase 
 of our population, he swells the result 
 to a magnitude, which, when compared 
 with our actual exports, would exliibit 
 a great deficiency. But is there any 
 justice in this mode of calculation? In 
 the first place, as before observed, the 
 year 1803 was a year of extraordinary 
 exportation. By reference to the ac- 
 counts, that of the article of flom-, for 
 example, there was an export that year 
 of thirteen hundred thousand barrels; 
 but the very next year it fell to eiglit 
 hundred thousand, and the next year to 
 seven hundred thousand. In the next 
 place, there never was any reason to 
 expect that the increase of our exports 
 of agricidtural products would keep 
 pace with the increase of our popula- 
 tion. That woidd be against all experi- 
 ence. It is, indeed, most desirable, that 
 there should be an augmented demand 
 for the products of agriculture; but, 
 nevertheless, the official returns of our 
 exports do not show that absolute want 
 of all foreign market whioli hup hf«*>p -^ 
 strongly stated. 
 
 But there are otlier means oy wh*cJi 
 to judge of the general condition of the 
 people. The quantity of the means of 
 subsistence consumed, or, to make use 
 of a phraseology better suited to the 
 
80 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 condition of onr own people, the quan- 
 tity of tlie comforts of life enjoyed, 
 is one of those means. It so hajv 
 pens, indeed, that it is not so easy in 
 this country as elsewhere to ascertain 
 facts of this sort with accuracy. Where 
 most of the articles of subsistence and 
 most of the comforts of life are taxed, 
 there is, of course, great facility in 
 ascertaining, from official statements, 
 the amount of consumption. But in 
 this country, most fortunately, the gov- 
 ernment neither knows, nor is concerned 
 to know, tlie annual consumption; and 
 estimates can only be formed in another 
 mode, and in reference only to a few 
 articles. Of these articles, tea is one. 
 It is not quite a luxury, and yet is some- 
 thing above the absolute necessaries of 
 life. Its consumption, therefore, will 
 be diminished in times of adversity, and 
 augmented in times of prosperity. By 
 deducting the annual export from the 
 annual import, and taking a number of 
 years together, we may arrive at a prob- 
 able estimate of consumption. The aver- 
 age of eleven years, from 1790 to 1800, 
 inclusive, will be found to be two mil- 
 lions and a half of pounds. From ISOl 
 to 1812, inclusive, the average was three 
 millions seven hundred thousand; and 
 the average of the last three years, to 
 wit, 1821, 1822, and 1823, was five 
 millions and a half. Having made a 
 just allowance for the increase of our 
 numbers, we shall still find, I think, 
 from these statements, that there is no 
 distress which has limited our means of 
 subsistence and enjo^nnent. 
 
 In forming an opinion of the degi'ee 
 of general prosperity, we may regard, 
 likewise, the progress of internal im- 
 provements, the investment of capital 
 in roads, bridges, and canals. All these 
 prove a balance of income over expendi- 
 ture; they afford evidence that there is 
 a surjilus of profits, which the present 
 generation is usefully vesting for the 
 benefit of the next. It cannot be denied, 
 that, in this particular, the progress of 
 the country is steady and rapid. 
 
 We m;iy look, too, to the sums ex- 
 pendoJ Jot fduciitioii. Are otir colleges 
 deser<*<V'' IV\ f^lhAra find themselves 
 
 less able than usual to educate their 
 children? It will be found, 1 imagine, 
 that the amount paid for the purpose of 
 education is constantly increasing, and 
 that the schools and colleges were never 
 more full than at the present moment. I 
 may add, tliat the endowment of public 
 charities, the contributions to objects of 
 general benevolence, whether foreign or 
 domestic, the munificence of individuals 
 towards whatever promises to benefit 
 the community, are all so many proofs 
 of national prosperity. And, finally, 
 there is no defalcation of revenue, no 
 pressure of taxation. 
 
 The general result, therefore, of a fair 
 examination of the present condition of 
 things, seems to me to be, that there is 
 a considerable depression of prices, and 
 curtailment of profit; and in some parts 
 of the country, it must be admitted, 
 there is a great degree of pecuniaiy 
 embarrassment, arising from the diffi- 
 culty of paying debts which were con- 
 tracted when prices were high. "With 
 these qualifications, the general state of 
 the country may be said to be prosjier- 
 ou3 ; and these are not sufficient to give 
 to the whole face of affairs any appear- 
 ance of general distress. 
 
 Supposing the evil, then, to be a de- 
 pression of prices, and a partial pecuni- 
 ary pressure, the next inquiry is into 
 the causes of that evil; and it appears 
 to me that there are several ; and in this 
 respect, I think, too mucli has been im- 
 puted by Mr. Speaker to the single cause 
 of the diminution of exports. Con- 
 nected, as we are, with all the commer- 
 cial nations of the world, and having 
 observed great changes to take place 
 elsewhere, we should consider whether 
 the causes of those changes have not 
 reached us, and whether we are not 
 suffering by the operation of them, in 
 common with others. Undoubtedly, 
 there has been a great fall in the price 
 of all commodities throughout the com- 
 mercial world, in con.sequence of the 
 restoration of a state of peace. When 
 the Allies entered France in 181-1, prices 
 rose astonishingly fast, and \evy high. 
 Colonial jModuce, for instance, in the 
 ports of this oomikry, m well as else- 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 SI 
 
 where, sprung up suddonly from the 
 lowest to the highest extreme. A new 
 and vast demand was created for the 
 commodities of trade. Tliese were the 
 natural consequences of the great poUti- 
 cal changes which then took place in 
 Europe. 
 
 We are to consider, too, that our own 
 war created now demand, and that a 
 government expenditure of twenty-five 
 or thirty million dollars a year had the 
 usll^l effect of enhancing prices. We 
 are obliged to add, that the paper issues 
 of our banks carried the same effect 
 still further. A depreciated currency 
 existed in a great part of the country; 
 depreciated to such an extent, that, at 
 one time, exchange between the centre 
 and the North was as high as twenty 
 per cent. The Bank of the United 
 States was instituted to correct this 
 evil; but, for causes which it is not 
 necessary now to enumerate, it did not 
 for some years bring back the currency 
 of the country to a sound state. This 
 depreciation of the circulating currency 
 was so much, of course, added to the 
 nominal prices of commodities, and 
 these prices, thus unnaturally high, 
 seemed, to those who looked only at 
 the appearance, to indicate great pros- 
 perity'. But such prosperity is more 
 specious than real. It would have been 
 better, probably, as the shock would 
 have been less, if prices had fallen 
 sooner. At length, however, they fell; 
 and as there is little doubt that certain 
 events in Europe had an influence in 
 determining the time at wliicli this fall 
 took place, I wiU advert shortly to some 
 of the principal of those events. 
 
 In May, 1819, the British House of 
 Commons decided, by a unanimous vote, 
 that the resumption of cash payments 
 by the Bank of England sliould not 
 be deferred beyond the ensuing Febru- 
 ary. The restriction had been contin- 
 ued from time to tinie, and from year 
 to year, Parliament always professing 
 to look to the restoration of a specie 
 cuirency whenever it should be found 
 practicable. Having been, in July, 1818, 
 continued to July, 1819, it was under- 
 stood that, in the interim, the impor- 
 
 Q 
 
 taut question of tlie time at wliich cash 
 payments should be resumed should be 
 finally settled. In the latter part of the 
 year 1818, the circulation of the bank 
 had been greatly reduced, and a severe 
 scarcity of money was felt in the Lon- 
 don market. Such was the state of 
 things in England. On the Continent, 
 otlier important events took place. The 
 French Indemnity Loan had been ne 
 gotiated in the summer of 1818, and tht 
 proportion of it belonging to Austria 
 Russia, and Prussia had been sold. This 
 created an unusual demand for gold and 
 silver in those countries. It has been 
 stated, that the amount of the precious 
 metals transmitted to Austria and Rus- 
 sia in tliat year was at least twenty mil- 
 lions sterling. Other large sums were 
 sent to Prussia and to Denmark. The 
 effect of this sudden drain of specie, 
 felt first at Paris, was communicated 
 to Amsterdam and Hamburg, and all 
 other commercial places in the Xorth 
 of Europe. 
 
 The paper system of England had cer- 
 tainly communicated an artificial value 
 to propeity. It had encouraged specu- 
 lation, and excited over-trading. When 
 the shock therefore came, and this vio- 
 lent pressure for money acted at the 
 same moment on the Continent and in 
 England, inflated and unnatural prices 
 could be kept up no longer. A reduc- 
 tion took place, which has been esti- 
 mated to have been at least equal to a 
 fall of thirty, if not forty per cent. The 
 depression was universal; and the change 
 was felt in the United States severely, 
 though not equally so in every part. 
 There are those, I am aware, who main- 
 tain that the events to which I have al- 
 luded did not cause the great fall of 
 prices, but that that fall was natural and 
 inevitable, from the previously existing 
 state of things, the abundance of com- 
 modities, and the want of demand. But 
 that would only prove that the effect 
 was produced in another way, rather 
 than by another cause. If these great 
 and sudden calls for money did not re- 
 duce prices, but prices fell, as of them- 
 selves, to their natural state, still the re- 
 sult is the same; for we perceive that, 
 
82 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 after these new calls for money, prices 
 could not be kept longer at their un- 
 natural lii'ight. 
 
 About the time of these foreign events, 
 our own bank system underwent a 
 change ; and all these causes, in my 
 view of the subject, concurred to pro 
 duce the great shock which took place 
 in our commercial cities, and in many 
 parts of the country. The year 1819 
 was a year of numerous failures, and 
 very considerable distress, and would 
 have furnished far better gromids than 
 exist at present for that gloomy repre- 
 eentation of our condition which has 
 been presented. Mr. Speaker has al- 
 luded to the strong inclination which 
 exists, or has existed, in various parts 
 of the country, to issue paper money, 
 as a proof of great existing difficulties. 
 I regard it rather as a very productive 
 cause of those difficulties; and the com- 
 mittee will not fail to observe, that there 
 is, at this moment, nmch the loudest 
 complaint of distress precisely where 
 there has been the greatest attempt to 
 relieve it by systems of paper credit. 
 And, on the other hand, content, pros- 
 perity, and happiness are most observa- 
 ble in those parts of the country where 
 there has been the least endeavor to ad- 
 minister relief by law. In truth, noth- 
 ing is so baneful, so utterly ruinous to 
 all true industry, as interfering witli the 
 legal value of money, or attempting to 
 raise artificial standards to supply its 
 place. Such remedies suit well the spirit 
 of extravagant speculation, but they sap 
 the very foundation of all honest acqui- 
 sition. By weakening the security of 
 property, they take away all motive for 
 exertion. Their effect is to transfer 
 property. 'Whenever a debt is allowed 
 to be paid by any thing less valuable 
 than the legal currency in respect to 
 which it was contracted, the difference 
 between the value of the paper given in 
 payment and the legal currency is pre- 
 cisely so much property taken from one 
 man and given to another, by legislative 
 enactment. 
 
 ^Vhen we talk, therefore, of protect- 
 ing industry, let us remember that tlie 
 first measure for tliat end is to secure it 
 
 in its earnings ; to assure it that it shall 
 receive its own. Before we invent new 
 modes of raising prices, let us take care 
 that existing prices are not rendered 
 wholly unavailable, by making them 
 capable of being paid in depreciated 
 paper. I regard. Sir, this issue of ir- 
 redeemable paper as the most prominent 
 and deplorable cause of whatever j>res3- 
 ure still exists in the country ; and, 
 further, I would put the question to the 
 members of this committee, whether it 
 is not from that part of the people who 
 have tried this paper system, and tried 
 it to their cost, that this bill receives 
 the most earnest support? And I can- 
 not forbear to ask, further, whether this 
 support does not proceed rather from a 
 general feeling of uneasiness under the 
 present condition of things, than from 
 the clear perception of any benefit which 
 the measure itself can confer? Is not 
 all expectation of advantage centred in 
 a sort of vague hope, tliat cliaage may 
 produce relief? Debt certainly presses 
 hardest where prices have been longest 
 kept up by artificial means. They find 
 the shock liglitest who take it soonest; 
 and I fully believe that, if those parts of 
 the country which now suffer most had 
 not augmented the force of the blow by 
 deferring it, they would liave now been 
 in a much better condition than they 
 are. ^^'e may assure ourselves, once for 
 all. Sir, that there can be no such thing 
 as payment of debts by legislation. We 
 may abolish debts indeed; we may trans- 
 fer property by visionary and violent 
 laws. But we deceive both ourselves 
 and our constituents, if we flatter either 
 ourselves or them with the hope that 
 there is any relief against whatever 
 pressure exists, but in economy and in- 
 dustry. The depression of prices and 
 the stagnation of business have been 
 in truth tl)e necessary result of cir- 
 cumstances. No government could pro- 
 vent them, and no government can al- 
 together relieve tlie people from their 
 effect. We have enjoyed a day of ex- 
 traordinary prosperity; we had been 
 neutral while the world was at war, and 
 had found a great demand for our prod- 
 ucts, our luivigatiun, ami our labor. We 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 83 
 
 liad uo right to expect that that state of 
 tilings would continue always. With the 
 return of peace, foreign nations would 
 struggle for themselves, and enter into 
 competition with us in the great objects 
 of pursuit. 
 
 Now, Sir, w'hat is the remedy for 
 existing evils ? What is the course of 
 policy suited to our actual condition? 
 Cerfaiuly it is not our wisdom to adopt 
 anv system that yuiy be offered to us, 
 without examination, and in the blind 
 hope that whatever changes our con- 
 dition may improve it. It is better that 
 we should 
 
 "bear those ills we have, 
 Than fly to others that we know not of." 
 
 "\\'e are bound to see that there is a fit- 
 ness and an aptitude in whatever meas- 
 ures may be reconnnended to relieve the 
 evils that afflict us ; and before we adopt 
 a system that professes to make great 
 alterations, it is our duty to look care- 
 fully to each leading interest of the com- 
 nmnity, and see how it may probably be 
 affected by our proposed legislation. 
 
 And, in the first place, what is the 
 condition of our commerce? Here we 
 must clearl}' perceive, that it is not en- 
 joying that rich hai'vest which fell to its 
 fortune during the continuance of the 
 Em-opean wars. It has been greatly 
 depressed, and limited to small profits. 
 Still, it is elastic and active, and seems 
 capable of recovering itself in some 
 measure from its depression. The ship- 
 ping interest, also, has suffered severely, 
 still more severely, probably, than com- 
 merce. If any thing should strike us 
 with astonishment, it is that the navi- 
 gation of the United States should be 
 able to sustain itself. Without any gov- 
 «rnnieLt protection whatever, it goes 
 abroad to challenge competition with 
 the whole world; and, in spite of all ob- 
 stacles, it has yet been able to maintain 
 eight hundred thousand tons in the em- 
 ployment of foreign trade. How, Sir, 
 do the ship-owners and navigators ac- 
 complish this ? How is it that they are 
 able to meet, and in some measure over- 
 come, universal competition ? It is not, 
 Sir, by protection and bounties; but by 
 
 unwearied exertion, by extreme econ- 
 omy, by unshaken perseverance, by that 
 manly and resolute spirit which relies 
 on itself to protect itself. These causes 
 alone enable American ships still to keep 
 their element, and show the flag of their 
 country in distant seas. The rates of 
 insurance may teach us how thoroughly 
 our ships are built, and how skilfully 
 and safely they are navigated. IJisks 
 are taken, as I learn, from the United 
 States to Liverpool, at one per cent; 
 and from the United States to Canton 
 and back, as low as three per cent. But 
 when we look to the low rate of freight, 
 and when we consider, also, tliat the 
 articles entering into the composition of 
 a ship, with the exception of wood, are 
 dearer here than in other countries, we 
 cannot but be utterly surprised that the 
 shipping interest has been able to sus- 
 tain itself at all. I need not say that the 
 navigation of the country is essential to 
 its honor and its defence. Yet, instead 
 of pi'oposing benefits for it in this hour 
 of its depression, we threaten by this 
 measure to lay upon it new and heavy 
 burdens. In the discussion, the other 
 day, of that provision of the biU which 
 proposes to tax tallow for the benefit of 
 the oil-merchants and whalemen, we had 
 the pleasure of hearing eloquent eulo- 
 giums upon that portion of om* shipping 
 employed in the whale-fishery, and strong 
 statements of its importance to the pub- 
 lic interest. But the same bill proposes 
 a severe tax upon that interest, for the 
 benefit of the iron-manufacturer and the 
 hemp-grower. So that the tallow-chand- 
 lers and soapboilers are sacrificed to the 
 oil-merchants, in order that these again 
 may contribute to the manufacturers of 
 iron and the growers of hemp. 
 
 If such be the state of our commerce 
 and navigation, what is the condition of 
 our home manufactures? How are they 
 amidst the general depression? Do they 
 need fiu-ther protection? and if any, 
 how much? On all these points, we 
 have had much general statement, but 
 little precise information. In the very 
 elaborate speech of !Mr. Speaker, we are 
 not supplied with satisfactory gi-ouuda 
 of judghig with respect to these varioua 
 
84 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 particulars. TMio can tell, from any I 
 tiling yet before the committee, whether | 
 the proposed duty be too high or too 
 low on any one article? Gentlemen tell 
 us, that they are in favor of domesiic 
 industrj' ; so am I. They would give it 
 protection; so would I. But then all 
 domestic industn.- is not confined to 
 manuiactmes. The emplojTiients of 
 agricidtuie, commerce, and navigation 
 are all branches of the same domestic 
 industry; tliey all furnish emplo^niient 
 for American capital and American 
 labor. And when the question is, 
 whether new duties shall be laid, for 
 the pui-pose of giving further encom-age- 
 ment to particular manufactm-es, eveiy 
 reasonable man must ask himself, both 
 whether the proposed new encourage- 
 ment be necessary, and whether it can 
 be given without injustice to other 
 branches of industry. 
 
 It is desirable to know, also, some- 
 what more distinctly, how the proposed 
 means will produce the intended effect. 
 One great object proposed, for example, 
 is the mcrease of the home market for 
 the cousmnption of agricultm-al prod- 
 ucts. This certainly is much to be 
 desu-ed ; but what provisions of the bill 
 are expected wholly or principally to 
 produce tliis, is not stated. I would not 
 deny that some increase of the home 
 market may follow, from the adoption 
 of this bill, but all its provisions have 
 not an eijual tendency to produce this 
 effect. Those manufactm-es which em- 
 ploy most labor, create, of com-se, most 
 demand for articles of consumption; 
 aud those create least in the production 
 of which ca[)ital and skill enter as the 
 chief ingredients of cost. I camiot. Sir-, 
 take this bill merely because a com- 
 mittee has reconnnended it. I cannot 
 espouse a side, and tight mider a flag. 
 I wholly repel the idea that we must 
 take tliis law, or pass no law on the 
 subject. What sliould hinder us from 
 exercising our own judgments upon 
 these provisions, singly and severally? 
 "Who has tlie power to place us, or why 
 Bhould we place ourselves, in a condition 
 where we cannot give to every measiu'e, 
 lliat is distinct and separate in itself, 
 
 a separate and distinct consideration? 
 Sir, I presmne no member of the com- 
 mittee will witliliold his assent fi'om 
 what he thinks right, imtil others will 
 yield their assent to what tliey think 
 wrong. There are many things in this 
 bill acceptable, probably, to the general 
 sensb of the House. "Why shouM not 
 these provisions be passed into a law, 
 and otliers left to be decided upon their 
 own merits, as a majority of the House 
 shall see fit? To some of these pro- 
 visions I am myself decidedly favora- 
 ble; to others I have great objections; 
 and I shoiUd have been veiy glad of au 
 opportmiity of giving my own vote dis- 
 tinctly on propositions which are, in 
 their own natiu-e, essentially and sub- 
 stantially distinct from one another. 
 
 But, Su-, before expressing my ovra 
 opinion upon the several provisions of 
 this bill, I will advert for a moment to 
 some other general topics. "We have 
 heard much of the policy of England, 
 and her example has been repeatedly 
 m-ged upon us, as proving, not only the 
 expediency of encom-agement and pro- 
 tection, but of exclusion and direct 
 prohibition also. I took occasion the 
 other day to remark, that more libei-al 
 notions were becoming prevalent on tliis 
 subject ; that the policy of restraints and 
 prohibitions was getting out of repute, 
 as the true nature of commerce became 
 better imderstood; and tliat, among 
 public men, those most distinguished 
 were most decided in their reprobation 
 of the broad principle of exclusion and 
 prohibition. Upon the truth of this 
 representation, as matter of fact, I sup- 
 posed there could not be two opinions 
 amoaer those who had observed the 
 progress of political sentinient in otlier 
 countries, and were acquainted with its 
 present state. Li tliis respect, however, 
 it would seem that I was greatly mis- 
 taken. "We have heard it again and 
 agaui declared, that the English govern- 
 ment still adheres, with immovable firm- 
 ness, to its old doctrines of prohibition; 
 that although jomnalists, theorists, and 
 scientific writers advance other doc- 
 trines, yet the practical men, the legis- 
 lators, the government of the country, 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 85 
 
 are too wise to follow them. It has 
 even been most sagaciously hinted, that 
 the promulgation of liberal opinions on 
 these subjects is intended only to delude 
 other governments, to cajole them into 
 the folly of liberal ideas, while England 
 retains to herself all the benefits of the 
 admirable old system of prohibition. 
 "W'e have heard from ]\Ir. Speaker a 
 ■warm commendation of the complex 
 mechanism of this system. The British 
 empire, it is said, is, in the first place, 
 to be protected against the rest of the 
 world; then the British Isles against 
 the colonies ; next, the isles respectively 
 against each other, England herself, as 
 the heart of the empire, being protected 
 most of all, and against all. 
 
 Truly, Sir, it appears to me that Mr. 
 Speaker's imagination has seen system, 
 and order, and beauty, in that which is 
 much more justly considered as the 
 result of ignorance, partiality, or vio- 
 lence. This part of English legislation 
 has resulted, partly from considering 
 Ireland as a conquered country, partly 
 from the want of a complete union, even 
 with Scotland, and partly from the 
 narrow views of colonial regulation, 
 which in early and uninformed periods 
 influenced the European states. 
 
 Xothing, J imagine, would strike the 
 public men of England more singularly, 
 than to find gentlemen of real informa- 
 tion and much weight in the councils of 
 this country expressmg sentiments like 
 these, in regard to the existing state of 
 these English laws. I have never said, 
 indeed, that prohibitory laws do not 
 exist in England ; we all know they do ; 
 but the question is, Does she owe her 
 prosperity and greatness to these laws? 
 I venture to say, that such is not the 
 opmion of public men now in England, 
 and the continuance of the laws, even 
 without any alteration, would not be 
 evidence that their opinion is different 
 from what I have represented it; be- 
 cause the laws having existed long, and 
 great interests having been built up on 
 the faith of them, they cannot now be 
 repealed without gi-eat and ovei"wlielm- 
 ing inconvenience. Because a thing 
 has Deeu wTongly done, it does not 
 
 therefore follow that it can now be 
 midone; and this is the reason, as I 
 understand it, for which exclusion, pro- 
 hibition, and monopoly are suffered to 
 remain in any degree in the English 
 system; and for the same reason, it will 
 be wise in us to take our measures, on 
 all subjects of this kind, with great 
 caution. We may not be able, but at 
 the hazard of much injuiy to individuals, 
 hereafter to retrace our steps. And yet, 
 whatever is extravagant or unreasonable 
 is not likely to endure. There may 
 come a moment of strong reaction ; and 
 if no moderation be sho-mi in laying on 
 duties, there may be as little scruple in 
 taking them off. 
 
 It may be here observed, that tnere is 
 a broad and marked distinction between 
 entire prohibition and reasonable encoui-- 
 agement. It is one thing, by duties or 
 taxes on foreign articles, to awaken a 
 home competition in the production of 
 the same articles ; it is another thing to 
 remove all competition by a total ex- 
 clusion of the foreign article ; and it is 
 quite another thing still, by total pro- 
 hibition, to raise up at home manufac- 
 tures not suited to the climate, the 
 natm'e of the coimtry, or the state of 
 the population. These are substantial 
 distinctions, and although it may not 
 be easy in every case to detennine 
 which of them a;iplies to a given article, 
 yet the distinctions themselves exist, 
 and in most cases will be suificiently 
 clear to indicate the true course of 
 policy; and, unless I have greatly mis- 
 taken the prevailing sentiment in the 
 councils of England, it gi-ows eveiy 
 day more and more favorable to the 
 diminution of resti'ictions, and to the 
 wisdom of leaving much (I do not say 
 every thing, for that would not be true) 
 to the enterprise and the discretion of 
 individuals. I should certainly not 
 have taken up the time of the committee 
 to state at any length the opinions of 
 other governments, or of the public men 
 of other counti-ies, upon a subject like 
 this; but an occasional remark made 
 by me the other day, having been so 
 dii-ectly controverted, especially by ^Ir. 
 Speaker, iu his observations j-esterday^ 
 
86 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 I must take occasion to refer to some 
 proofs of -what I have stated. 
 
 What, then, is the state of English 
 opinion? Everybody knows that, after 
 the termination of the late European 
 war, there came a time of great press- 
 ure in England. Since her example has 
 been quoted, let it be asked in what 
 mode her government sought relief. 
 Did it aim to maintain artificial and 
 unnatural prices V Did it maintain a 
 swollen and extravagant paper circula- 
 tion? Did it carry further the laws of 
 prohibition and exclusion ? Did it 
 draw closer the cords of colonial re- 
 straint ? No, Sir, but precisely the 
 reverse. Instead of relying on legisla- 
 tive contrivances and artificial devices, 
 it trusted to the enterpri.se and industry 
 of the people, which it sedulously sought 
 to excite, not by imposing restraint, but 
 by removing it, wlierever its removal 
 was practicable. In ^lay, 1820, the at- 
 tention of the government having been 
 much turned to the state of foreign 
 trade, a distinguished member ^ of the 
 House of Peers brought forward a Par- 
 liamentary motion upon tiiat subject, 
 followed by an ample discussion and a 
 full statement of his own opinions. In 
 the course of his remarks, he observed, 
 '* that there ought to be no prohibitory 
 duties as such ; for that it was evident, 
 that, where a manufacture could not be 
 carried on, or a production raised, but 
 under the protection of a prohibitory 
 duty, that manufacture, or that prod- 
 uce, could not be brought to market 
 but at a loss. In his opinion, the name 
 of strict prohibition might, therefore, 
 in commerce, be got rid of altogether ; 
 but he did not see the same objection to 
 protecting duties, which, while they 
 admitted of the introduction of com- 
 modities from abroad similar to those 
 which we ourselves manufactured, 
 jilaced them so much on a level as to 
 allow a competition between them." 
 •No axiom," he added, "was more 
 true than this: that it was by growing 
 what the territory of a country could 
 givw most cheaply, and by receiving 
 
 * LorJ Lansdowne. 
 
 from other countries what it could not 
 produce except at too gi-eat an expense, 
 that the greatest degree of happiness 
 was to be communicated to the greatest 
 extent of population." 
 
 In assenting to the motion, the first 
 minister ^ of the crown expressed his 
 own opinion of the great advantage re- 
 sulting from unrestricted freedom of 
 trade. " Of the soundness of that gen 
 eral principle," he observed, " I can 
 entertain no doubt. I can entertair. no 
 doubt of what would have been the 
 great advantages to the civilized world, 
 if the system of unrestricted trade had 
 been acted upon by every nation from 
 the earliest period of its commercial in- 
 tercourse with its neighbors. If to 
 those advantages there could have been 
 any exceptions, I am persuaded that 
 they would have been but few; and I 
 am also persuaded that the cases to 
 which they would have referred would 
 not have been, in themselves, con- 
 nected with the trade and commerce 
 of England. But we are now in a 
 situation in which, I will not say that 
 a reference to the principle of un- 
 restricted trade can be of no use, 
 because such a reference may correct 
 erroneous reasoning, but in which it is 
 impossible for us, or for any country 
 in the world but the United States of 
 America, to act unreservedly on that 
 principle. The commercial regulations 
 of the European world have been long 
 established, and cannot suddenly be 
 departed from." Having supposed a 
 proposition to be made to I2ngland by a 
 foreign state for free commerce and in- 
 tercourse, and an unrestricted excliange 
 of agricultural products and of manu- 
 factures, he proceeds to ebserve: " II 
 would be impossible to accede to such a 
 proposition. We have risen to our }ires- 
 ent greatness under a different system. 
 Some suppose that we have risen iu 
 consequence of that system; others, of 
 tvhom I am one, believe that tee have risen 
 in spile of that system. But, whichever of 
 these hypotheses be true, certain it i.s 
 that we liave risen under a very differ- 
 
 2 Lord Liverpool. 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 87 
 
 ent system than tliat of free and unre- 
 stricted trade. It is utterly irajiossible, 
 witli our debt and taxation, even if tliey 
 were but half tlieir existing amount, 
 that we can suddenly adopt the system 
 of free trade." 
 
 Lord Elleiiborough, in the same de- 
 bate, said, " that he attributed the gen- 
 eral distress then existing in Europe to 
 the regulations that had taken place 
 Bince the destruction of the French 
 power. Most of the states on the Con- 
 tin»uit had surrounded themselves as 
 witl walls of brass, to inhibit inter- 
 course with other states. Intercourse 
 was prohibited, even in districts of the 
 same state, as was the case in Austria 
 and Sardinia. Thus, though the taxes 
 on the people had been lightened, the 
 severity of their condition had been in- 
 creased, lie believed tliat the discon- 
 tent which pervaded most parts of 
 Europe, and especially Germany, was 
 more owing to commercial restrictions 
 than to any theoretical doctrines on gov- 
 ernment; and that a free communica- 
 tion among them would do more to 
 restore tranquillity, than any other step 
 that could be adopted. He objected to 
 all attemjits to frustrate the benevolent 
 intentions of Providence, which had 
 given to various countries various wants, 
 in order to bring them together. He 
 objected to it as anti-social ; he objected 
 to it as making commerce the means of 
 barbarizing instead of enlightening na- 
 tions. The state of the trade with 
 France was most disgraceful to both 
 countries; the two greatest civilized na- 
 tions of the world, placed at a distance 
 of scarcely twenty miles from each 
 other, had contrived, by their artificial 
 regulations, to reduce their commerce 
 with each other to a mere nullity." 
 Every member speaking on this occa- 
 sion agreed in the general sentiments 
 favorable to unrestricted intercourse, 
 which had thus been advanced; one of 
 them lemarking, at the conclusion of 
 the debate, that " the principles of free 
 trade, which he was happy to see so 
 fully recognized, were of the utmost 
 consequence; for, though, in the pres- 
 ent circumstances of the country, a free 
 
 trade was unattainable, yet their task 
 hereafter was to approximate to it. 
 Considering the prejudices and in- 
 terests which were opposed to the recog- 
 nition of that principle, it was no small 
 indication of the firmness and liberal 
 ity of government to have so fully con- 
 ceded it." 
 
 Sir, we have seen, in the course of 
 this discussion, that several gentli'men 
 have expressed their high admiration of 
 the silk manufacture of England. Its 
 commendation was begun, I think, by 
 the honorable member from Vermont, 
 who sits near me, who thinks that that 
 alone gives conclusive evidence of the 
 benefits produced l)y attention to manu- 
 factures, inasmuch as it is a great source 
 of wealth to the nation, and has amply 
 repaid all the cost of its protection. 
 Mr. Speaker's approbation of this part 
 of the English example was still warmer. 
 Now, Sir, it does so happen, that both 
 these gentlemen differ very widely on 
 this point from the opinions entertained 
 in England, by persons of the first rank, 
 both as to knowledge and power. In 
 the debate to which I have already 
 referred, the proposer of the motion 
 urged the expediency of providing for 
 the admission of the silks of France 
 into England. " He was aware," he 
 said, " that there was a poor and in- 
 dustrious body of manufacturers, whose, 
 interests must suffer by such an ar- 
 rangement; and therefore he felt that. 
 it would be the duty of Parliament to- 
 provide for the present generation by a. 
 lai-ge Parliamentary grant. It was con- 
 formable to every principle of .sound 
 justice to do so, when the interests of a. 
 particular class were sacrificed to the 
 good of the whole." In answer to 
 these observations. Lord Liverpool said 
 that, with reference to several branches 
 of manufactures, time, and the change 
 of circumstances, had rendered the sys- 
 tem of protecting duties merely nom- 
 inal; and that, in his opinion, if all the 
 protecting laws which regarded both the 
 woollen and cotton manufactures were 
 to be repealed, no injurious effects 
 would thereby be occasioned. " But," 
 he observes, " with respect to silk, thai 
 
88 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 manufacture in this kingdom is so com- 
 pletely artificial, that any attempt to 
 introduce the principles of free trade 
 with reference to it might put an end 
 to it altogether. I allow that the silk 
 manufacture is not natural to this coun- 
 try. / wish we had never had a silk 
 manufactory. I allow that it is natural 
 to France; I allow that it might have 
 been better, had each country adhered 
 exclusively to that manufacture in 
 which each is superior; and had the 
 silks of France been exchanged for 
 British cottons. But I must look at 
 things as they are ; and when I consider 
 the extent of capital, and the immense 
 population, consisting, I believe, of 
 about fifty thousand persons, engaged 
 in our silk manufacture, I can only say, 
 that one of the few points in which I 
 totally disagree with the proposer of the 
 motion is the expediency, under exist- 
 ing circumstances, of holding out any 
 idea that it would be possible to re- 
 linquish the silk manufacture, and to 
 provide for those who live by it, by 
 Parliamentary enactment. Whatever 
 objections there may be to the continu- 
 ance of the protecting system, I repeat, 
 that it is impossible altogether to relin- 
 quish it. I may regret that the system 
 was ever commenced; but as I cannot 
 recall that act, I must submit to the in- 
 convenience by which it is attended, 
 rather than expose the country to evils 
 of greater magnitude." Let it be re- 
 membered. Sir, that these are not the 
 sentiments of a theorist, nor the fancies 
 of speculation ; but the operative opin- 
 ions of the first minister of England, 
 acknowledged to be one of the ablest 
 and most practical statesmen of his 
 country. 
 
 Cientlemen could have hardly been 
 moro unfortunate than in the selection 
 of the silk manufacture in England as 
 an example of the beneficial effects of 
 that pystem which they would recom- 
 mend. It is, in the language which I 
 have quoted, completely artificial. It 
 lias been sustained by I know not how 
 many laws, breaking in upon the plain- 
 est princijiles of general expediency. 
 At the last session of rarliament, tlie 
 
 manufacturers petitioned for the repeal 
 of three or four of these statutes, com- 
 plaining of the vexatious restrictions 
 which they impose on the wages of 
 labor; setting forth, that a great variety 
 of orders has from time to time been 
 issued by magistrates under the au- 
 thority of these laws, interfering in an 
 oppressive manner with the minutest 
 details of the manufacture, — such as 
 limiting the number of threads to an 
 inch, restricting the widths of many 
 sorts of work, and determining the 
 quantity of labor not to be exceeded 
 without extra wages ; that by the oper- 
 ation of these laws, the rate of wages, 
 instead of being left to the recognized 
 principles of regulation, has been arbi- 
 trarily fixed by persons whose ignorance 
 renders them incompetent to a just de- 
 cision; that masters are compelled by 
 law to pay an equal price for all work, 
 whether well or ill performed ; and that 
 they are wholly prevented from using 
 improved machinery, it being ordered, 
 that work, in the weaving of which 
 machinery is employed, shall be paid 
 precisely at the same rate as if done by 
 hand; that these acts have frequently 
 given rise to the most vexatious regula- 
 tions, the unintentional breach of which 
 has subjected manufacturers to ruinous 
 penalties; and that the introduction of 
 all machinery being prevented, by which 
 labor might be cheapened, and the manu • 
 facturers being compelled to pay at a 
 fixed price, under all circumstances, 
 they are unable to afford emplojiuent 
 to their workmen, in times of stagnation 
 of trade, and are compelled to stop their 
 looms. And finally, they complain that, 
 notwithstanding these gi'ievances under 
 which they labor, while carrying on their 
 manufacture in London, tlie law still 
 prohibits them, while they continue to 
 reside there, from emjiloying any portion 
 of their capital in the same business in 
 any other part of the kingdom, where it 
 might be more beneficially conducted. 
 Now, Sir, absurd as tliese laws must 
 appear to be to every man, the attempt 
 to repeal them did not, as far as I recol- 
 lect, altogether succeed. The weavers 
 were too numerous, theu interests too 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 S^ 
 
 great, or their prejudices too strong; 
 and this notable instance of protection 
 and monopoly still exists, to be lamented 
 in England with as much sincerity as it 
 seems to be atlmired here. 
 
 In order further to show the prevail- 
 ing sentiment of the English govern- 
 ment, I would refer to a report of a 
 select committee of the House of Com- 
 mons, at the head of which was the 
 Vice-President of the Board of Trade 
 (.Mr. Wallace), in July, 1820. "The 
 time," say that committee, " w'hen 
 monopolies could be successfully sup- 
 ported, or would be patiently endured, 
 either in respect to subjects against sub- 
 jects, or particular countries against the 
 rest of the world, seems to have passed 
 away. Commerce, to continue undis- 
 tm-bed and secure, must be, as it was 
 intended to be, a source of reciprocal 
 amity between nations, and an inter- 
 change of productions to promote the 
 industiT, the wealth, and the happiness 
 of mankhid." In moving for the re- 
 appointment of the committee in Feb- 
 ruary, 1823, the same gentleman said: 
 " AVe must also get rid of that feeling 
 of appropriation which exliibited itself 
 in a disposition to produce every thing 
 necessary for our own consumption, and 
 to render ourselves independent of the 
 world. No notion could be more absm"d 
 or mischievous; it led, even in peace, to 
 an animosity and rancor greater than 
 existed in time of war. Undoubtedly 
 there would be great prejudices to com- 
 bat, both in this country and elsewhere, 
 in the attemj^t to remove the difficulties 
 which are most obnoxious. It would 
 be impossible to forget the attention 
 which was in some respects due to the 
 present system of protections, although 
 that attention ought certainly not to be 
 can ied beyond the absolute necessity of 
 the case." And in a second report of 
 the committee, drawn by the same 
 gentleman, in that part of it which pro- 
 poses a diminution of duties on timber 
 from the North of Europe, and the 
 policy of giving a legislative preference 
 to the importation of such timber in the 
 log, and a discouragement of the impor- 
 tation of deals, it is stated that the com- 
 
 mittee reject this policy, because, among 
 otiier reasons, " it is founded on a prin 
 ciple of exclusion, which they are most 
 averse to see brought into operation, in 
 any new in.ftnnce, without the warrant 
 of some evident and great political ex- 
 pediency." And on many subsequent 
 occasions the same gentleman has taken 
 occasion to observe, that he ditfered 
 from those who thought that manufac- 
 tures could not flourish without restric- 
 tions on trade; that old prejudices of 
 that sort were dying away, and that 
 inore liberal and just sentiments were 
 taking their place. 
 
 These sentiments appear to have been 
 followed by important legal provisions, 
 calculated to remove restrictions aud 
 prohibitions where they were most se- 
 verely felt; that is to say, in several 
 branches of navigation and trade. They 
 have relaxed their colonial system, they 
 have opened the ports of their islands, 
 and have done away the restriction which 
 limited the trade of the colony to the 
 mother country. Colonial products can 
 now be carried directly from the islands 
 to any part of Europe ; and it may not 
 be improbable, considering our own high 
 duties on spirits, that that article may 
 be exchanged hereafter by the English 
 West India colonies directly for the tim 
 ber and deals of the Baltic. It may be 
 added, that Mr. Lowe, whom the gentle- 
 man has cited, says, that nobody sup- 
 poses that the three great staples of 
 English manufactures, cotton, woollen, 
 and hardware, are benefited by any 
 existing protecting duties ; and that one 
 object of all these protecting laws is 
 usually overlooked, and that is, that 
 they have been intended to reconcile the 
 various interests to taxation; the corn 
 law, for example, being designed aa 
 some equivalent to the agricultural in- 
 terest for the burden of tithes and of 
 poor-rates. 
 
 In fine. Sir, I think it is clear, that, 
 if we now- embrace the system of prohi- 
 bitions and restrictions, we shall show 
 an affection for what others have dis- 
 carded, and be attempting to ornament 
 ourselves with cast-off apparel. 
 
 Sir, I should not have gone into thia 
 
90 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 prolix detail of opinions from any con- 
 sideration of tlieir special importance on 
 the present occasion; but having hap- 
 pened to state that such -was the actual 
 o] inion of the government of England 
 ai the present time, and the accuracy of 
 this representation having been so con- 
 fidently denied, I have chosen to put the 
 matter beyond doubt or cavil, although 
 at the expense of these tedious citations. 
 I shall have occasion hereafter to refer 
 more particularly to sundry recent Brit- 
 ish enactments, by way of showing the 
 diligence and spirit with which that 
 government strives to sustain its navi- 
 gating interest, by opening the widest 
 possible range to the enterprise of indi- 
 vidual adventurers. I repeat, that I 
 have not alluded to these examples of a 
 foreign state as being fit to control our 
 own policy. In the general principle, I 
 acquiesce. Protection, when carried to 
 the point which is now recommended, 
 that is, to entire prohibition, seems to 
 me destructive of all commercial inter- 
 course between nations. AVe are urged 
 to adopt the system upon general prin- 
 ciples; and what would be the conse- 
 quence of the universal application of 
 such a general principle, but that nations 
 would abstain entirely from all inter- 
 course with one another? I do not 
 admit the general principle; on the con- 
 trary, I think freedom of trade to be the 
 general principle, and restriction the 
 exception. And it is for every state, 
 taking into view its own condition, to 
 judge of the propriety, in any case, of 
 making an exception, constantly pre- 
 ferring, as I think all wi?e governments 
 will, not to depart without urgent reason 
 from the general rule. 
 
 There i- another point in the existing 
 policy of England to which I would 
 most earnestly invite the attention of 
 the committee; I mean the warehouse 
 system, or what we usually call the 
 system of drawback. Very great preju- 
 dices appear to me to exist with us on 
 that subject. We seem averse to the 
 extension of Uie principle. The V.ug- 
 lish government, on the contrary, appear 
 to have carried it to the extreme of lib- 
 erality. They liave arrived, however, at 
 
 their present opinions and present prac- 
 tice by slow degrees. The transit system 
 was commenced about the year ISQ'd, 
 but the first law was partial and limited. 
 It admitted the importation of raw 
 materials for exportation, but it ex- 
 cluded almost every sort of manufac- 
 tured goods. This was done for the 
 same reason that we propose to prevent 
 the transit of Canadian wheat through 
 the United States, the fear of aiding the 
 competition of the foreign article with 
 our own in foreign markets. Better 
 reflection or more experience has in- 
 duced them to abandon that mode of 
 reasoning, and to consider all such 
 means of influencing foreign markets as 
 nugatorj'; since, in the present active 
 and enlightened state of the world, 
 nations will supply themselves from the 
 best sources, and the true policy of all 
 producers, whether of raw materials or 
 of manufactured articles, is, not vainly 
 to endeavor to keep other vendors out of 
 the market, but to conquer them in it by 
 the quality and the cheapness of their 
 articles. The present policy of England, 
 therefore, is to allure the importation of 
 commodities into England, there to be 
 deposited in English warehouses, thence 
 to be exported in assorted cargoes, and 
 thus enabling her to carry on a general 
 export trade to all quarters of the globe. 
 Articles of all kinds, with the single 
 exception of tea, may be brought into 
 England, from any part of the world, 
 in foreign as well as British shij's, there 
 warehoused, and again exported, at the 
 pleasure of the owner, without the pay- 
 ment of any duty or government charge 
 whatever. 
 
 While I am upon this subject, I would 
 take notice also of the recent proposi- 
 tion in the English Parliament to abol- 
 ish the tax on imported wool ; and it is 
 observable that those who support this 
 proposition give the same reasons that 
 have been offered here, within the last 
 week, against the duty which we projiose 
 on the same article. They say that their 
 manufacturers require a cheap and coarse 
 wool, for the supply of the Mediterranean 
 and Levant trade, and that, without a 
 more free admission of the wool of the 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 91 
 
 Continent, that trade will all r;iil into the 
 hands of the Germans and Italians, who 
 will carry it on through Leghorn and 
 Trieste. "While there is this duty on 
 foreign wool to protect the wool-giowers 
 of England, there is, on the other hand, 
 a prohibition on the exportation of the 
 native article in aid of the manufac- 
 turers. The opinion seems to be gain- 
 ing strength, that the true policy is to 
 abolish both. 
 
 La«s have long existed in England 
 preventing the emigration of artisans 
 and the exportation of machinery; but 
 the policy of these, also, has become 
 doubted, and an inquiry has been insti- 
 tuted in Parliament into the expediency 
 of repealing them. As to the emigra- 
 tion of artisans, say those who disapprove 
 the laws, if that were desirable, no law 
 could effect it ; and as to the exportation 
 of machinery, let us make it and export 
 it as we would any other commodity. If 
 France is determined to spin and weave 
 her owni cotton, let us, if we may, still 
 have the benefit of furnishing the ma- 
 chinery. 
 
 I have stated these things. Sir, to show 
 what seems to be the general tone of 
 thinking and reasoning on these subjects 
 in that country, the example of which 
 has been so much pressed upon us. 
 AMiether the present policy of England 
 be right or wrong, wise or unwise, it 
 cannot, as it seems clearly to me, be 
 quoted as an authority for carrying fur- 
 ther the restrictive and exclusive sys- 
 tem, either iu regard to manufactm-es 
 or trade. To re-establish a sound cur- 
 rency, to aaeet at once the shock, tre- 
 mendous as it was, of the fall of prices, 
 to enlarge her capacity for foreign trade, 
 to ojaen wide the field of individual en- 
 terprise and competition, and to say 
 plainly and Jistinctly that the country 
 must relieve itself from tlie embarrass- 
 ments which it felt, by economy, fru- 
 gality', and renewed efforts of entei-prise, 
 — these appear to be the general outline 
 of the policy which England has pur- 
 sued. 
 
 !Mt. Chairaxan , I wUl now proceed to 
 say a few words upon a topic, but for 
 
 the introduction of which into this de- 
 bate I should not have given the com- 
 mittee on this occasion the trouble of 
 hearing me. Some days ago, I believe 
 it was when we were settling the con- 
 troversy between the oil-merchants ar,d 
 the tallow-chandlers, the balance of trade 
 made its appearance in debate, and I 
 must confess. Sir, that I spoke of it, or 
 rather spoke to it, somewhat freely and 
 irreverently. I believe I used the hard 
 names which have been imputed to me, 
 and I did it simply for the purpose ol 
 laying the spectre, and driving it back 
 to its tomb. Certainly, Sir, when I 
 called the old notion on this subject 
 nonsense, I did not suppose that T should 
 offend any one, unless the dead sliould 
 happen to hear me. All the living gen- 
 eration, I took it for granted, would 
 think the term very properly applied. 
 In this, however, I was mistaken. The 
 dead and the living rise up together to 
 call me to account, and I must defend 
 myself as well as I am able. 
 
 Let us inquire, then, Sir, what is 
 meant by an unfavorable balance of 
 trade, and what the argument is, drawn 
 from that source. By an unfavorable 
 balance of trade, I understand, is meant 
 that state of things in which importation 
 exceeds exportation. To apply it to our 
 own case, if the value of goods imported 
 exceed the value of those exported, then 
 the balance of trade is said to be against 
 us, inasmuch as we have run in debt to 
 the amount of this difference. There- 
 fore it is said, that, if a nation continue 
 long in a commerce like this, it must be 
 rendered absolutely bankrupt. It is in 
 the condition of a man that buys more 
 than he sells; and how can such a traffic 
 be maintained without ruin? Xow, Sir, 
 the whole fallacy of this argimaent con- 
 sists in supposing, that, whenever tlie 
 value of imports exceeds that of ex- 
 ports, a debt is necessarily created to 
 the extent of the difference, whereas, 
 ordinarily, the import is no more than 
 the result of the export, augmented in 
 value by the labor of transportation. 
 The excess of imports over exports, in 
 truth, usually shows the gains, not the 
 losses, of trade; or. in a country' that 
 
92 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 not only buys and sells goods, but em- 
 ploys ships in carn-ing goods also, it 
 shows the profits of commerce, and the 
 earnings of navigation. Nothing is more 
 certain than that, in the usual course of 
 things, and taking a series of years to- 
 gether, tlie value of our imports is the 
 aggregate of our exports and our 
 freights. K the value of commodities 
 imported in a given instance did not ex- 
 ceed the value of the outward cargo, 
 with which they were purchased, then it 
 •would be clear to every man's common 
 sense, that the voyage had not been 
 profitable. If such commodities fell far 
 sliort in value of the cost of the outward 
 cargo , then tlie voyage would be a veiy los- 
 ing one ; and yet it would present exactly 
 that state of tilings, which, according to 
 the notion of a balance of trade, can 
 alone indicate a prosperous commerce. 
 On the other hand, if the return cargo 
 were found to be worth much more than 
 the outward cargo, while the merchant, 
 having paid for the goods exported, and 
 all the expenses of tlie voyage, finds a 
 handsome sum yet in his hands, which 
 he calls profits, the balance of trade is 
 still against him, and, whatever he may 
 think of it, he is in a very bad way. 
 Although one individual or all individ- 
 uals gain, the nation loses; while all its 
 citizens grow ricli, the country grows 
 poor. This is the doctrine of the bal- 
 ance of trade. 
 
 Allow me. Sir, to give an instance 
 tending to show how unaccountably in- 
 dividuals deceive themselves, and im- 
 agine themselves to be somewhat rap- 
 idly mending their condition, while they 
 ought to be persuaded that, by that in- 
 fallible standard, the balance of trade, 
 thsy are on the high road to ruin. Some 
 yea's ago, in better times than the pres- 
 ent, a ship left one of the towns of Xew 
 England with 70,000 specie dollars. She 
 proceeded to Mocha, on the Red Sea, and 
 thara laid out these dollars in coffee, 
 drugs, spices, and other articles procured 
 in that market. With this new cargo 
 she proceeiled to Europe ; two thirds of 
 it wore sold in Holland for §130,000, 
 which tlie ship brought back, and placed 
 in the same bank from the vaults of 
 
 which she had taken her original outfit. 
 The other third was .sent to the ports ol 
 the Mediterranean, and produced a re- 
 turn of §25,000 in specie, and 815.000 in 
 Italian merchandise. These sums to- 
 gether make 8170,000 imported, which 
 is 8100,000 more than was exported, and 
 is therefore proof of an unfavorable bal- 
 ance of trade, to that amount, in this 
 adventure. We should find no great 
 difficulty. Sir, in paying off our bal- 
 ances, if this were the nature of them 
 all. 
 
 The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that all 
 these obsolete and exploded notions had 
 their origin in veiy mistaken ideas of the 
 true nature of commerce. Commerce is 
 not a gambling among nations for a 
 stake, to be w'on by some and lost by 
 others. It has not the tendency neces- 
 sarily to impoverish one of the parties 
 to it, while it enriches the other; all 
 parties gain, all parties make profits, ali 
 parties grow rich, by the operations ol 
 just and liberal commerce. If the world 
 had but one clime and but one soil; if 
 all men had the same wants and the 
 same means, on the spot of their exist- 
 ence, to gratify those wants, — then, in- 
 deed, what one obtained from the other 
 by exchange would injure one party in 
 the same degree that it benefited the 
 other; then, indeed, there would be some 
 foundation for the balance of trade. But 
 Providence has disposed our lot much 
 more kindly. We inhabit a various 
 earth. We have reciprocal wants, and 
 reciprocal means for gi-atifying one 
 another's wants. This is the true ori- 
 gin of commerce, which is nothing more 
 than an exchange of equivalents, and, 
 from the rude barter of its primitive 
 state, to the refined and complex condi- 
 tion in which we see it, its principle is 
 uniformly the same, its only object being, 
 in every stage, to produce that exchange 
 of commodities between individuals and 
 between nations which shall conduce to 
 the advantage and to the happiness of 
 both. Commerce between nations has 
 the same essential character as com- 
 merce between individuals, or between 
 parts of the same nation. Cannot two 
 individuals make an interchange of com- 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 93 
 
 niodities which shall prove beneficial to 
 both, or ill which the balance of trade 
 shall be in favor of botli? If not, the 
 tailor and the shoemaker, the farmer 
 and the smith, have hitherto very much 
 misunderstood their own interests. And 
 with reuard to the internal trade of a 
 country, in which the same rule would 
 apply as between nations, do we ever 
 speak of such an intercourse as prejudi- 
 cial to one side because it is useful to 
 the other? Do we ever hear that, be- 
 cause the intercourse between New York 
 and Albany is advantageous to one of 
 those places, it must therefore be ruin- 
 ous to the other? 
 
 May I be allowed. Sir, to read a pas- 
 sage on this subject from the obsen^a- 
 tious of a gentleman, in my opinion one 
 of the most clear and sensible writers 
 and speakers of the age upon subjects 
 of this sort? ^ "There is no political 
 question on which the prevalence of false 
 principles is so general, as in what re- 
 lates to the nature of commerce and to 
 the pretended balance of trade; and 
 there are few which have led to a 
 greater nmnber of practical mistakes, 
 attended with consequences extensively 
 prejudicial to the hajjpiness of mankind. 
 In this country, our Parliamentary pro- 
 ceedings, our public documents, and the 
 works of several able and popular writers, 
 have combined to propagate the impres- 
 sion, that we are indebted for much of 
 cm" riches to what is called the balance 
 of trade." "Our true policy would 
 surely be to profess, as the object and 
 guide of om- commercial system, that 
 which every man who has studied the 
 subject must know to be the true prin- 
 ciple of connnerce, the interchange of 
 reciprocal and equivalent benefit. We 
 may rest assured that it is not in the 
 nature of commerce to enrich one party 
 at the expense of the other. This is a 
 purpose at which, if it were practicable, 
 we ought not to aim; and which, if we 
 aimed at, we could not accomplish." 
 These remarks, I believe, Sir, were writ- 
 ten some ten or twelve years ago. They 
 are in perfect accordance with the opin- 
 
 1 Mr Huskisson, President of the English 
 Board 3' Trade. 
 
 ions advanced in more elaborate treatises, 
 and now that the world has returned to 
 a state of peace, and commerce has re 
 sumed its natural channels, and dilferent 
 nations are enjoying, or seeking to enjoy, 
 their respective portions of it, all see the 
 justness of these ideas, — all see, that, 
 in this day of knowledge and of pea^e, 
 there can be no commerce between na- 
 tions but that which shall benefit all 
 who are parties to it. 
 
 If it were necessaiy, ^Ir. Chairman, 
 I might ask the attention of the com- 
 mittee to refer to a document before us, 
 on this subject of the balance of trade. 
 It will be seen by reference to the ac- 
 counts, that, in the course of the last 
 year, our total export to Holland ex- 
 ceeded two millions and a half ; our total 
 import from the same country was but 
 seven hundred thousand dollars. Xow, 
 can any man be wild enough to make 
 any inference from this as to the gain or 
 loss of our trade with Holland for that 
 year? Our trade w'ith Russia for the 
 same year produced a balance the other 
 way, our import being two millions, and 
 our export but half a million. But this 
 has no more tendency to show the Rus- 
 sian trade a losing trade, than the other 
 statement has to show that the Dutch 
 trade has been a gainful one. Neither 
 of them, by itself, proves any thing. 
 
 Springing out of this notion of a 
 balance of trade, there is another idea, 
 which has been much dwelt upon in the 
 course of this debate; that is, that we 
 ought not to buy of nations who do not 
 buy of us; for example, that the Russian 
 trade is a trade disadvantageous to the 
 country, and ought to be discom-aged, 
 because, in the ports of Russia, we buy 
 more than we sell. Now allow me to 
 observe, in the first place. Sir, that we 
 have no account showing how much we 
 do sell in the i^orts of Russia Our 
 oflicial returns show us only what is the 
 amount of our du'ect trade with her 
 ports. But then we aU know that the 
 proceeds of another portion of our ex- 
 ports go to the same market, though in- 
 directly. We send our own products, 
 for example, to Cuba, or to Brazil; we 
 there exchange them for the sugar and 
 
94 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 the coffee of those countries, and these 
 articles we carrj' to St. Petersburg, and 
 there sell them. Again ; our exports to 
 Holland and Hamburg are connected 
 directly or indirectly with our imports 
 from Russia. AV'liut diit'ereuce does it 
 make, in sense or rea.son, whether a 
 cargo of iron be bought at St. Peters- 
 burg, by the exchange of a cargo of 
 tobacco, or whether the tobacco has been 
 sold on the way, in a better market, in 
 a port of Holland, the money remitted 
 to England, and the iron paid for by a 
 bill on London? There might indeed 
 have been an augmented freight, there 
 might have been some saving of com- 
 missions, if tobacco had been in brisk 
 demand in the Russian market. But 
 still there is nothing to show that the 
 whole voyage may not have been highly 
 profitable. That depends upon the origi- 
 nal cost of the article here, the amount 
 of freight and insurance to Holland, the 
 price obtained there, the rate of ex- 
 change between Holland and England, 
 the expense, then, of proceeding to St. 
 Petersburg, the price of iron there, the 
 rate of exchange between that place and 
 England, the amount of freight and in- 
 Burance at home, and, finally, the value 
 of the iron when brought to our own 
 market. These are the calculations 
 which determine the fortune of the ad- 
 venture; and nothing can be judged of 
 it, one way or tlie other, by the relative 
 state of our imports or exports with 
 Holland, England, or Russia. 
 
 I would not be understood to deny, 
 that it may often be our interest to cul- 
 tivate a trade with countries that require 
 most of such commodities as we can 
 furnish, and which are capable also of 
 directly suj)plying our own wants. This 
 is the original and the simplest form of 
 all counnerce, and is no doubt highly 
 beneficial. Some countries are so situ- 
 ated, that conunerce, in this original 
 form, or something near it, may be all 
 that they can, without considerable in- 
 convenience, carry on. Our trade, for 
 examjile, with Madeira and the Western 
 Islands has been useful to the country, 
 as furnishing a demand for some portion 
 of our agricultural products, which prob- 
 
 ably could not have been bought had we 
 not received their products in return. 
 Countries situated still farther from the 
 gi'eat marts and highways of the com- 
 mercial world may afford still strongei 
 instances of the necessity and utility of 
 conducting commerce on the original 
 principle of barter, without much assist- 
 ance from the operations of credit and 
 exchange. All I would be understood 
 to say is, that it by no means follows 
 that we can carry on nothing but a los- 
 ing trade with a country from which we 
 receive more of her products than she 
 receives of ours. Since I was supposed, 
 the other day, in speaking upon tiiis sub- 
 ject, to advance opinions which not only 
 this country ouglit to reject, but which 
 also other countries, and those the most 
 distinguished for skiU and success in 
 commercial intercourse, do reject, 1 will 
 ask leave to refer again to the discussion 
 which I first mentioned in the English 
 Parliament, relative to the foreign trade 
 of that country. " With regard,'* says 
 the mover 1 of the proposition, " to the 
 argument employed against renewing 
 our intercourse with the North of Eu- 
 rope, namely, that those who supplied 
 us with timber from that quarter would 
 not receive British manufactures in re- 
 turn, it appeared to him futile and un- 
 grounded. K they did not send direct 
 for our manufactures at home, they 
 would send for them to Leipsic and 
 other fairs of Germany. Were not the 
 Russian and Polish merchants purchas- 
 ers there to a great amount? But he 
 would never admit the principle, that a 
 trade was not profitable because we were 
 obliged to carry it on with the precious 
 metals, or that we ought to renounce it, 
 because our manid!actures were not re- 
 ceived by the foreign nation in returu 
 for its produce, ^^'hatever we received 
 nmst be paid for in the produce of our 
 land and labor, directly or circuitously, 
 and he was glad to have the noble 
 Earl's - marked concurrence in this prin- 
 ciple." 
 
 Referring ourselves again. Sir, to the 
 analogies of common life, no one would 
 
 1 The Marquess of Lansdon'iie. 
 
 2 Lord Liverpool. 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 95 
 
 nay that a farmer or a mechanic should 
 buy only where lie can do so by the ex- 
 change of his own produce, or of bis 
 own manufacture. Such exchange may 
 be often convenient; and, on tlie other 
 hand, the cash purchase may be often 
 more convenient. It is the same in the 
 intercourse of nations. Indeed, Mr. 
 S])eaker has placed this argument on 
 Aerj' clear grounds. It was said, in the 
 early part of the debate, tliat, if we 
 cease to import English cotton fabrics, 
 England will no longer contiime to pur- 
 chase our cotton. To this Mr. Speaker 
 replied, with great force and justice, 
 that, as she must have cotton in large 
 quantities, she will buy the article where 
 she can find it best and cheapest; and 
 that it would be quite ridiculous in her, 
 manufacturing as she still would be, for 
 tier own vast consumption and tlie con- 
 eumption of millions in other countries, 
 to reject our uplands because we had 
 learned to manufacture a part of them 
 for ourselves. Would it not be equally 
 ridiculous in us, if the commodities of 
 Russia were both cheaper and better 
 Ruited to our wants than coidd be found 
 elsewhere, to abstain from commerce with 
 her, because she will not receive in return 
 other commodities which we have to sell, 
 but which she has no occasion to buy? 
 
 Intimately connected. Sir, with this 
 topic, is another which has been brought 
 into the debate ; I mean the evil so much 
 complained of, the exportation of specie. 
 "We liear gentlemen imputing the loss of 
 market at home to a want of money, and 
 this want of money to the exportation of 
 the precious metals. We hear the India 
 and China trade denounced, as a com- 
 merce conducted on our side, in a great 
 measure, with gold and silver. These 
 opinions. Sir, are clearly void of all just 
 foundation, and we cannot too soon get 
 rid of them. There are no shallower 
 reasoners than those political and com- 
 mercial writers who would represent it 
 to be the only true and gainful end of 
 commerce, to accumulate tlie precious 
 metals. These are articles of use, and 
 articles of merchandise, with this addi- 
 tional circumstance belonging to them, 
 
 that they are made, by the general con- 
 sent of nations, the standard by which 
 the value of all other meixhandist is to 
 be estimated. In regard to weiglus and 
 measiu'es, something drawn from exter- 
 nal nature is made a common standard, 
 for the purposes of general convenience; 
 and this is precisely the office performed 
 by the precious metals, in addition to 
 those uses to which, as metals, they are 
 capable of being applied. There may 
 be of these too much or too little in & 
 country at a particular time, as there 
 may be of any other articles. When 
 the market is overstocked with them, as 
 it oft(!n is, their exportation becomes as 
 proper and as useful as that of other 
 commodities, under similar circumstan- 
 ces. AVe need no more repine, when 
 the dollars which have been brought 
 here from South America are despatched 
 to other countries, than when coffee and 
 sugar take the same direction. We 
 often deceive ourselves, by attributing 
 to a scarcity of money that which is the 
 result of other causes. In the course of 
 this debate, the honorable member from 
 Pennsylvania ^ has represented the coun- 
 try as full of every thing but money. 
 But this I take to be a mistake. The 
 agricultural products, so abundant in 
 Pennsylvania, will not, he says, sell for 
 money ; but they will sell for money as 
 quick as for any other article which haj)- 
 pens to be in demand. They will sell 
 for money, for example, as easily as for 
 coffee or for tea, at the prices which 
 properly belong to those articles. The 
 mistake lies in imputing that to want 
 of money which arises from want of 
 demand. Men do not buy wheat be- 
 cause they have money, but because 
 they want wheat. To decide whether 
 money be plenty or not, that is, whether 
 there be a large portion of cajiital un- 
 employed or not, when the currency cf 
 a country is metallic, we must look, not 
 only to the prices of commodities, but 
 also to the rate of interest. A low rate 
 of interest, a facility of obtaining money 
 on loans, a disposition to invest in per- 
 manent stocks, all of which are proofs 
 that money is plenty, may neveilheless 
 
 1 Mr. Tod. 
 
9G 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 often denote a state rot of the highest 
 prosperity. They may, and often do, 
 show a want of eniploynieut for capital; 
 and tlie accumulation of specie shows 
 the same thing. We have no occasion 
 for the precious metals as money, except 
 for the purposes of circulation, or rather 
 of sustaining a safe paper circulation. 
 And whenever there is a prospect of a 
 profitaVile investment abroad, all the 
 gold and silver, except what these pui- 
 poses require, will be exported. For 
 the same reason, if a demand exist 
 abroad for sugar and coffee, whatever 
 amount of those articles might exist m 
 the country, beyond the wants of its 
 own consumption, would be sent abroad 
 to meet that demand. 
 
 Besides, Sir, how should it ever occur 
 to anybody, that we should continue to 
 export gold and silver, if we did not 
 continue to import them also ? If a 
 vessel take our own products to the 
 Havana, or elsewhere, exchange them 
 for dollars, proceed to Cliina, exchange 
 them for silks and teas, bring these last 
 to the poi-ts of the Mediterranean, sell 
 them there for dollars, and return to the 
 United States, — this would be a voyage 
 resulting in the importation of the pre- 
 cious metals. But if she had returned 
 from Cuba, and the dollars obtained 
 tliere had been shipped direct from the 
 United States to China, the China goods 
 sold in Holland, and the proceeds brought 
 home in the hemp and iron of Russia, 
 this would be a voyage in which they 
 were exported. Yet everybody sees that 
 both might be equally beneficial to tlie 
 individual and to the public. I believe, 
 Sir, that, in point of fact, we have en- 
 joyed great benefit in our trade with 
 India and China, from the liberty of 
 going from place to ])lace all over the 
 world, without being obliged in the 
 meim time to return home, a liberty not 
 hei'etofore enjoyed by the private traders 
 of England, in regard to India and 
 China. Suppose the American ship to 
 be at Brazil, for example; she could 
 proceed with her dollars direct to India, 
 and, in return, could distribute lier 
 cargo in all tlie various j^orts of Europe 
 or America; while an English ship, if 
 
 a private trader, being at Brazil, must 
 first return to England, and then could 
 only i)roceed in the direct line from 
 England to India. This advantage our 
 countrjT^nen have not been backwaid to 
 improve; and in the debate to which I 
 have already so often referred, it was 
 stated, not without some complaint of 
 the inconvenience of exclusion, and the 
 natural sluggisliness of monopoly, that 
 American ships were at that moment 
 fitting out in the Thames, to supply 
 France, Holland, and other countries 
 on the Continent, with tea; while the 
 East India Company would not do this 
 of themselves, nor allow any of their 
 fellow-countrpnen to do it for them. 
 
 There is yet another subject, Mr. 
 Chairman, upon which I would wish to 
 say something, if I might presume upon 
 the continued patience of the commit- 
 tee. We hear sometimes in the House, 
 and continually out of it, of the rate of 
 exchange, as being one proof that we 
 are on the downward road to ruin. Mr. 
 Speaker himself has adverted to that 
 topic, and I am afraid that his author- 
 ity may give credit to opinions clearly 
 imfounded, and which lead to very false 
 and erroneous conclusions. Sir, let us 
 see what the facts are. Exchange on 
 England has recently risen one or one 
 and a half per cent, partly owing, per- 
 haps, to the introduction of this bill 
 into Congress. Before this recent rise, 
 and for the last six months, I understand 
 its average ma)' have been about seven 
 and a half per cent advance. Now, 
 supposing this to be the real, and not 
 merely, as it is, the nominal, par of ex- 
 change between us and England, wiiat 
 would it prove? Nothing, except that 
 funds were wanted by American citi- 
 zens in England for commercial opera- 
 tions, to be carried on either in England 
 or elsewhere. It would not necessarily 
 show that we were indebted to England ; 
 for, if we liad occasion to pay debts in 
 Russia or Holland, funds in England 
 would naturally enough be required for 
 such a purpose. Even if it did prove 
 that a balance was due England at the 
 moment, it would have no tendency to 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 97 
 
 explain to us whether our commei :e with 
 Enc^land had been profitable or unprof- 
 itable. 
 
 But it is not true, in point of fact, 
 tliat the real price of exchange is seven 
 and a half per cent advance, nor, in- 
 deed, that there is at the present mo- 
 ment any advance at all. That is to 
 say, it is not true that merchants -will 
 give such an advance, or any advance, 
 for money in England, beyond what they 
 would give for the same amount, in the 
 same curi'ency, here. It will strike 
 every one who reflects upon it, that, if 
 there were a real difference of seven and 
 a half per cent, money would be imme- 
 diately shipped to England; because the 
 expense of transportation would be far 
 less than that difference. Or commodi- 
 ties of trade would be shipped to Eu- 
 rope, and the proceeds remitted to Eng- 
 land. If it could so happen, that 
 American mei'chants should be willing 
 to pay ten per cent premium for money 
 in England, or, in other words, that a 
 real difference to that amount in the 
 exchange should exist, its effects would 
 be immediately seen in new shipments 
 of our own commodities to Europe, be- 
 cause this state of things would create 
 new motives. A cargo of tobacco, for 
 example, might sell at Amsterdam for 
 the same price as before: but if its pro- 
 ceeds, when remitted to London, were 
 advanced, as they would be in such case, 
 ten per cent by the state of exchange, 
 this would be so much added to the price, 
 and would operate therefore as a motive 
 for the exportation; and in this way na- 
 tional balances are, and always will be, 
 adjusted. 
 
 To form any accurate idea of the true 
 state of exchange between two countries, 
 we must look at their currencies, and 
 compare the quantities of gold and silver 
 which they may respectively represent. 
 This usually explains the state of the 
 exchanges; and this will satisfactorily 
 account for the apparent advance now 
 existing on bills drawn on England. 
 The English standard of value is gold ; 
 with us that office is performed by gold, 
 and by silver also, at a fixed relation to 
 each other. But our estimate of silver 
 
 is rather higher, in proportion to gold, 
 than most nations give it; it is higher, 
 especially, than in England, at the pres- 
 ent moment. The consequence is, that 
 silver, which remains a legal currency 
 with us, stays here, while the gold has 
 gone abroad ; vei'ifying the universal 
 truth, that, if two currencies be allowed 
 to exist, of different values, that which 
 is cheapest w'ill fill up the whole cir- 
 culation. For as much gold as will 
 suffice to pay here a debt of a given 
 amount, we can buy in England more 
 silver than would be necessaiy to pay 
 the same debt here; and from this dif- 
 ference in the value of silver arises 
 wholly or in a great measure the pres- 
 ent apparent difference in exchange. 
 Spanish dollars sell now in England for 
 four shillings and nine pence sterling 
 per oiuice, ecjual to one dollar and six 
 cents. By our standard the same ounce 
 is worth one dollar and sixteen cents, 
 being a difference of about nine per 
 cent. The true par of exchange, there- 
 fore, is nine per cent. If a merchant 
 here jiay one hundred Spanish dollars 
 for a bill on England, at nominal par, 
 in sterling money, that is for a bill of 
 £22 10.-.'., the proceeds of this bill, when 
 paid in England in the legal currency, 
 will there purchase, at the present price 
 of silver, one hundred and nine Spanish 
 dollars. Therefore, if the nominal ad- 
 vance on English bills do not exceed 
 nine per cent, the real exchange is not 
 against this country; in other words, it 
 does not show that there is any pressing 
 or particular occasion for the remittance 
 of funds to England. 
 
 As little can be inferred from the 
 occasional transfer of United States 
 stock to England. Considering the in- 
 terest paid on om* stocks, the entire 
 stability of our credit, and the accumu- 
 lation of capital in England, it is not at 
 aU wonderful that investments should 
 occasionally be made in om- funds. As 
 a sort of comitervailing fact, it may bo 
 stated that English stocks are now actu- 
 ally held in this country, though proba- 
 bly not to any considerable amount. 
 
 I will now proceed, Sir, to state soma 
 
98 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 objections of a more general nature to the 
 oourse of Mr. Speaker's observations. 
 
 He seems to me to argue the question 
 as if all domestic industry were con- 
 fined to the production of manufactured 
 articles; as if the employment of our 
 own capital and our own labor, in the 
 occupations of commerce and navigation, 
 were not as emi^hatically domestic in- 
 dustry as any other occupation. Some 
 other gentlemen, in the course of the 
 debate, have spoken of the price paid 
 for every foreign manufactured article 
 as so much given for the encouragement 
 of foreign labor, to the prejudice of our 
 own. But is not every such article the 
 product of our own labor as truly as if 
 we had manufactured it ourselves? Our 
 labor has earned it, and paid the price 
 for it. It is so much added to the stock 
 of national wealth. If the commodity 
 were dollars, nobody would doubt the 
 truth of this remark ; and it is precisely 
 as correct in its application to any other 
 commodity as to silver. One man 
 makes a yard of cloth at home ; another 
 raises agricultural products and buys a 
 yard of imported cloth. Both these are 
 equally the earnings of domestic indus- 
 tiy, and the only questions that arise in 
 the case are two: the first is, which is 
 the best mode, under all the circimi- 
 etances, of obtaining the article; the 
 second is, how far this first question is 
 proper to be decided by government, 
 and how far it is proper to be left to 
 individual discretion. There is no 
 foundation for tlie distinction which 
 attributes to certain employments the 
 peculiar appellation of American in- 
 dustiy; and it is, in my judgment, 
 extremely unwise to attempt such dis- 
 criminations. 
 
 We are asked, "\Miat nations have 
 ever attained eminent prosperity with- 
 out encouraging manufactm-esV I may 
 a.sk, What nation ever reached the like 
 prosperity without promoting foreign 
 trade? I regard these interests as 
 closely connected, and am of opinion 
 that it should be our aim to cause them 
 to flourish together. 1 know it would 
 be very easy to promote manufactures, 
 at lea.'^t for a time, but probably for a 
 
 short time only, if we might act in dis- 
 regard of other interests. "We could 
 cause a sudden transfer of capital, and 
 a violent change in the pursuits of men. 
 We could exceedingly benefit some 
 classes by these means. But what, 
 then, becomes of the interests of others? 
 The power of collecting revenue by 
 duties on imports, and the habit of the 
 government of collecting almost its 
 whole revenue in that mode, will enable 
 us, without exceeding the bounds of 
 moderation, to give great advantages to 
 those classes of manufactures which we 
 may think most useful to promote at 
 home. "\Miat I object to is the im- 
 moderate use of the power, — exclusions 
 and prohibitions; all of which, as I 
 think, not only interrupt the pursuits 
 of individuals, with great injury to 
 themselves and little or no benefit to 
 the country, but also often divert our 
 own labor, or, as it may veiy proi>erly 
 be called, our own domestic industry, 
 fiom those occupations in which it is 
 well employed and well j>aid, to others 
 in which it will be worse employed and 
 worse paid. For my part, I see very 
 little relief to those who are likely to be 
 deprived of their employments, or who 
 find the prices of the commodities which 
 they need raised, in any of the alterna- 
 tives whicli yir. Speaker has presented. 
 It is nothing to say tliat they may, if 
 they choose, continue to buy the foreign 
 article; the answer is, the price is aug- 
 mented: nor that they may use the 
 domestic article; the price of tliat also 
 is increased. Xor can they sujiply them- 
 selves by tlie substitution of their own 
 fabric. How can the agricultiuist make 
 his o\vn iron? How can the ship-o^vue^ 
 grow his own hemp ? 
 
 But I have a yet stronger objection to 
 the course of Mr. Speaker's reasoning; 
 which is, that he leaves out of the ca-se 
 all that has been already dene for the 
 protection of manufactiues, and argues 
 the question as if those interests were 
 now for the first time to receive aid 
 from duties on imports. I can hardly 
 express the surprise I feel that Mr 
 Speaker should fall into the common 
 mode of expression used elsewhere, and 
 
THE TARIFF 
 
 09 
 
 ask LE we will give our manufacturers no 
 protection. Sir, look to tlie history of 
 oiu" laws; look to the jiresent state of 
 our laws. Consider tliat our whole 
 revenue, with a trifling exception, is 
 collected at the custom-house, and 
 always has been; and then say what 
 propriety there is in calling on the gov- 
 ernment for protection, a** if no pro- 
 tection had heretofore been afforded. 
 The real question before us, in regard 
 to all the important clauses of the bill, 
 is not whether we will lay duties, but 
 whether we will augment duties. The 
 demand is for something more than 
 exists, and yet it is pressed as if nothing 
 existed. It is wholly forgotten that iron 
 and hemp, for example, already pay a 
 very heavy and bm-densome duty; and, 
 in short, from the general tenor of LIr. 
 Speaker's observations, one would infer 
 that, hitherto, we had rather taxed oiu" 
 own manufactures than fostered them 
 by taxes on those of other countries. 
 "NVe hear of the fatal policy of the tariff 
 of 1816; and yet the law of 1816 was 
 passed avowedly for the benefit of manu- 
 facturers, and, with vei-y few exceptions, 
 imposed on imported articles very great 
 additions of tax; in some important 
 instances, indeed, amounting to a pro- 
 hibition. 
 
 Sir, on this subject, it becomes us at 
 least to understand the real posture of 
 the question. Let us not suppose that 
 we are beginning the protection of manu- 
 factures, by duties oii imports. "\Miat 
 we are asked to do is, to render those 
 duties much higher, and therefore, in- 
 stead of dealing in general commenda- 
 tions of the benefits of protection, tlie 
 friends of the bill, I tliink, are bound 
 to make out a fair case for each of the 
 manufactures which they propose to 
 benefit. The government has already 
 done much for theu* protection, and it 
 ought to be p'esumed to have done 
 enough, unless it be shown, by the facts 
 and considerations applicable to each, 
 that there is a necessity for doing more. 
 
 On the general question. Sir, allow 
 me to ask if the doctrine of proliibition, 
 as a general doctrine, be not preposter- 
 ous. Suppose all nations to act upon 
 
 it; they would be prosperous, then, 
 according to the argument, precisely in 
 tlie proiiortion in which they abolished 
 intercomse witli one another. The less 
 of mutual commerce the better, upon 
 this hj'jiothesis. Protection and encour- 
 agement may be, and doubtless are, 
 sometimes, wise and beneficial, if kept 
 within proper limits; but when carried 
 to an extravagant height, or the point of 
 prohibition, the absurd character of the 
 system manifests itself. Mr. Speaker 
 has refeiTed to the late Emperor Xapo- 
 leou, as having attempted to naturalize 
 the manufacture of cotton in France. 
 He did not cite a more extravagant part 
 of the projects of that ruler, that is, his 
 attempt to naturalize the growth of that 
 plant itself, in France; whereas, we 
 have understood that considerable dis- 
 tricts in the South of France, and in 
 Italy, of rich and productive lands, were 
 at one time withdraw^n from profitable 
 uses, and devoted to raising, at great 
 expense, a little bad cotton. Xor have 
 we been referred to the attempts, under 
 the same system, to make sugar and 
 coffee from common culinary vegetables ; 
 attempts which served to fiU. the print- 
 shops of Europe, and to show us how 
 easy is the transition from what some 
 think sublime to that which aU admit 
 to be ridiculous. The foUy of some of 
 these projects has not been surpassed, 
 nor hardly equalled, unless it be by the 
 philosopher in one of the satires of 
 Swift, who so long labored to extract 
 siuibeams from cucumbers. 
 
 The poverty and unhappiness of Spain 
 have been attributed to the want of 
 protection to her owni industiy. If by 
 this it be meant that the poverty of 
 Spain is owing to bad government and 
 bad laws, the remark is, in a gi'eat 
 measure, just. But these very laws are 
 bad because they are restrictive, partial, 
 and prohibitory. If proliibition were 
 protection, Sjjaiu woidd seem to have 
 had enough of it. Nothing can exceed 
 the barbarous rigidity of her colonial 
 system, or the folly of her early com- 
 mercial regulations. Unenlightened 
 and bigoted legislation, the multitude 
 of holidays, miserable roads, monojiolies 
 
 L.cfC. 
 
100 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 on the part of government, restrictive 
 laws, that ought long since to have been 
 abrogated, are generally, and I believe 
 truly, reckoned the principal caiises of 
 the had state of the productive industry 
 of Spain. Any partial improvement in 
 her condition, or increase of her pros- 
 perity, has been, in all cases, the result 
 of relaxation, and the abolition of what 
 was intended for favor and protection. 
 
 In short, Sir, the general sense of this 
 age sets, with a strong current, in favor 
 of freedom of commercial intercourse, 
 and unrestrained individual action. 
 Men yield up their notions of monopoly 
 and restriction, as they yield up other 
 prejudices, slowly and reluctantly; but 
 they cannot withstand the general tide 
 of opinion. 
 
 Let me now ask, Sir, what relief this 
 bill proposes to some of those gi-eat and 
 essential interests of the country, the 
 condition of which has been referred to 
 as proof of national distress ; and which 
 condition, although I do not think it 
 makes out a case of distress, yet does 
 indicate depression. 
 
 And first. Sir, as to our foreign trade. 
 Mr. Speaker has stated that there has 
 been a considerable falling off in the 
 tonnage employed in that trade. This 
 is true, lamentably true. In my opinion, 
 it is one of those occurrences which ought 
 to aiTCst our immediate, our deep, our 
 most earnest attention. "What does this 
 bill propose for its relief ? It proposes 
 nothing but new burdens. It proposes 
 to diminish its employment, and it pro- 
 poses, at the same time, to augment its 
 expense, by subjecting it to heavier tax- 
 ation. Su", there is no interest, in regard 
 to which a stronger case for protection 
 can be made out, than the navigating 
 interest. Whether we look at its present 
 condition, which is admitted to be de- 
 pressed, the number of persons connected 
 with it, and dependent upon it for their 
 daily bread, or its importance to the 
 country in a political point of view, it 
 has claims upon our attention which 
 cannot be surpassed. But what do we 
 propose to do for it? I repeat, Sir, 
 simply to burden and to tax it. By 
 H statement which I have already sub- 
 
 mitted to the committee, it appears tliat 
 the shipping interest pays, annually, 
 more than half a million of dollars in 
 duties on articles used in the constnic- 
 tion of ships. We propose to add nearly, 
 or quite, fifty per cent to this amount, 
 at the very moment that we appeal to 
 the languishing state of this interest aa 
 a proof of national distress. Let it be 
 remembered that our shipping employed 
 in foreign commerce has, at this mo- 
 ment, not the shadow of government 
 protection. It goes abroad upon the 
 wide sea to make its o\sti way, and earn 
 its own bread, in a professed competition 
 with the whole world. Its resources are 
 its own frugality, its own skill, its ovn\ 
 enterprise. It hopes to succeed, if it 
 shall succeed at all, not by extraordinary 
 aid of government, but by patience, vigi- 
 lance, and toil. This right arm of tlie 
 nation's safety strengthens its own mus- 
 cle by its own efforts, and by unwearied 
 exertion in its own defence becomes 
 strong for the defence of the countiy. 
 
 Xo one acquainted with this interest 
 can deny that its situation, at this mo- 
 ment, is extremely critical. We have 
 left it hitherto to maintain itself or per- 
 ish; to swim if it can, and to sink if it 
 must. But at this moment of its ap- 
 parent struggle, can we as men, can we 
 as patriots, add another stone to the 
 weight that threatens to carrj' it down V 
 Sir, there is a limit to human power, 
 and to human effort. I know the com- 
 mercial marine of this country can do 
 almost every thing, and bear almost ev- 
 eiy thing. Yet some things are impos- 
 sible to be done, and some burdens may 
 be impossible to be borne ; and as it was 
 the last ounce that broke the back of the 
 camel, so the last tax, although it wore 
 even a small one, may be decisive as to 
 the power of our marine to sustain the 
 coufiict in which it is now engaged with 
 all the commercial nations on the globe. 
 
 Again, Mr. Chairman, the failures and 
 the bankruptcies which have taken place 
 in our large cities have been mentiuned 
 as proving the little success attending 
 commerce, and its general decline. But 
 this bill has no balm for those wounds. 
 It is very remarkable, that when the 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 101 
 
 losses and disasters of certain manufac- 
 turers, those of iron, for instance, are 
 mentioned, it is done for tlie purpose 
 of invoking aid for the distressed. Xot 
 so with the losses and disasters of com- 
 merce; these last are narrated, and not 
 unfrequently much exaggerated, to prove 
 the ruinous nature of the employment, 
 and to show that it ought to be aban- 
 doned, and the capital engaged in it 
 turned to other objects. 
 
 It has been often said. Sir, that our 
 maniifacturers ha^-e to contend, not only 
 against the natural advantages of those 
 who produce similar articles in foreign 
 countries, but also against the action 
 of foreign governments, who have great 
 political interest in aiding their own 
 manufactures to suppress om-s. But 
 have not these governments as great an 
 interest to cripple om* marine, by pre- 
 venting the gro\\-th of our commerce 
 and navigation ? What is it that makes 
 us the object of the highest respect, or 
 the most suspicious jealousy, to foreign 
 states? "What is it that most enables 
 us to take high relative rank among the 
 nations ? I need not say that this re- 
 sults, more than from any thing else, 
 from that quantity of military power 
 which we can cause to be water-borne, 
 and from that extent of commerce which 
 we are able to mahitain throughout the 
 world. 
 
 Mr. Chau-man, I am conscious of hav- 
 ing detained the committee much too 
 long with these observations. My apol- 
 ogy for now proceedmg to some remarks 
 upon the particular clauses of the bill is, 
 that, representing a district at once com- 
 mercial and highly manufacturing, and 
 being called upon to vote upon a biU 
 containing provisions so numerous and 
 so various, I am naturally desirous to 
 state as well what I approve, as what I 
 would reject. 
 
 The first section proposes an aug- 
 mented duty upon woollen manufactures. 
 This, if it were unqualified, woidd no 
 doubt be desirable to those who are en- 
 gaged in that business. I have myself 
 presented a petition from the woollen 
 manufacturers of Massachusetts, pray- 
 
 ing an augmented ad valorem duty upon 
 imported woollen cloths ; and I am pre- 
 pared to accede to that proposition, to a 
 reasonable extent. But then this bil) 
 proposes, also, a very high duty upon 
 imported wool ; and, as far as I can 
 learn, a majority of the manufacturers 
 are at least extremely doubtful whether, 
 taking these two provisions together, the 
 state of the law is not better for them 
 now than it would be if this bill should 
 pass. It is said, this tax on raw wool 
 will benefit the agriculturist; but I know 
 it to be the opinion of some of the best 
 informed of that class, that it will do 
 them more hurt than good. They fear 
 it will check the manufacturer .. and con- 
 sequently check his demand for their ar- 
 ticle. The argument is, that a certain 
 quantity of coarse wool, cheaper than we 
 can possibly furnish, is necessary to en- 
 able the manufacturer to carry on the 
 general business, and that if this cannot 
 be had, the consequence will be, not a 
 gi-eater, but a less, manufacture of our 
 own wool. I am aware that very in- 
 telligent persons differ upon this point ; 
 but if we may safely infer from that dif- 
 ference of opinion, that the proposed 
 benefit is at least doubtful, it would be 
 prudent perhaps to abstain from the ex- 
 periment. Certain it is, that the same 
 reasoning has been employed, as I have 
 before stated, on the same subject, when 
 a renewed application was made to the 
 English Parliament to repeal the duty on 
 imported wool, I believe scarcely two 
 months ago; those who supported the 
 application pressing urgently the neces- 
 sity of an unrestricted use of the cheap, 
 imported raw material, with a view to 
 supply with coarse cloths the markets 
 of warm climates, such as those of Egj-pt 
 and Turkey, and especially a vast newly 
 created demand in the South American 
 states. 
 
 As to the manufactures of cotton, it 
 is agreed, I believe, that they are gen- 
 erally successful. It is understood that 
 the present existing duty operates pretty 
 much as a prohibition over those descrip- 
 tions of fabrics to which it applies. The 
 proposed alteration would probably en- 
 able the American manufacturer to com- 
 
102 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 monce competition with higher-priced 
 fahrics; and so, perhaps, would an aug- 
 irentation less than is here proposed. 
 I consiner the cotton manufactxires not 
 only to have reached, but to have passed, 
 the point of competition. 1 regard their 
 success as certain, and their growth as 
 rapid as the most impatient could well 
 expect. If, however, a provision of. the 
 nature of that recommended here were 
 thought necessary, to commence new 
 operations in the same line of manu- 
 facture, I should cheerfidly agree to it, 
 if it were not a,t the cost of sacrificing 
 otlier great interests of the countiy. I 
 need hardly say, that whatever promotes 
 tiie cotton and woollen manufactures 
 promotes most important interests of 
 my constituents. They have a great 
 stake in the success of those establish- 
 ments, and, as far as those manufac- 
 tures are concerned, would be as much 
 benefited by the provisions of this bill 
 as any part of the community. It is ob- 
 viou<!. too, I should think, that, for some 
 considerable time, manufactures of this 
 sort, to whatever magnitude they may 
 rise, will be principally established in 
 those parts of the country where popu- 
 lation is most dense, capital most abun- 
 dant, and where the most successfid be- 
 ginnings have already been made. 
 
 But if these be thought to be advan- 
 tages, they are greatly counterbalanced 
 by other advantages enjoyed by other 
 portions of the country. I cannot but 
 regard the situation of the West as high- 
 ly favorable to human happiness. It 
 offers, in the abundance of its new and 
 fertile lands, such assurances of per- 
 manent property and respectability to 
 the industrious, it enables them to lay 
 such sure foundations for a competent 
 provision for their families, it makes 
 such a nation of freeholders, that it need 
 Dot envy the happiest and most pros- 
 perous of the manufacturing communi- 
 ties. "We may talk as we will of well-fed 
 and well-clothed day-laborers orjoiirney- 
 men; tliey are not, after all, to be com- 
 pared, either for happiness or respecta- 
 bility, with him who sleeps under his 
 own roof and cultivates his own fee- 
 simple inheritance. 
 
 "With respect to the proposed duty on 
 glass, I would observe, that, upon the 
 best means of judging which I posses^!, 
 I am of opinion that the chairman of the 
 committee is right in stating that there 
 is in effect a bounty upon ^he exporta- 
 tion of the British article. I think it 
 entirely proper, therefore, to laise our 
 own duty by such an amount as shall be 
 equivalent to that bounty. 
 
 And here, Mr. Chairman, before pro- 
 ceeding to those parts of the bill to 
 which I mo.st strenuously object. I will 
 be so presumptuous as to take up a chal- 
 lenge which Mr. Speaker has thrown 
 down. He has asked us, in a tone of 
 interrogatory indicative of the feeling 
 of anticipated triumph, to mention any 
 country in wliich manufactures have 
 flourished without the aid of prohib- 
 itory laws. He has demanded if it be 
 not policy, protection, ay, and prohibi- 
 tion, that have carried other states to 
 the height of their prosperity, and 
 whether any one has succeeded with 
 such tame and inert legislation as oui-s. 
 Sir. I am ready to answer this inquiry- 
 
 Tliere is a country, not undistin- 
 guished among the nations, in which 
 the progress of manufactures has been 
 far more rapid than in any other, and 
 yet unaided by prohibitions or unnatural 
 restrictions. That country, the happi- 
 est which the sun shines on, is our own. 
 
 The woollen manufactures of England 
 have existed from the early ages of the 
 monarchy. Provisions designed to aid 
 and foster them are in the black-letter 
 statutes of the Edwards and tlie Henrys. 
 Ours, on the contrary, are but of yester- 
 day; and yet, with no more than the 
 protection of existing laws, they are 
 already at the point of close and promis- 
 ing competition. Sir, tcthing is more 
 un philosophical than to refer us, on 
 these subjects, to the ix)licy adopted by 
 other nations in a very different state 
 of society, or to infer that wliat was 
 judged expedient by them, in their 
 early history, must also be expedient 
 for us, in this early part of our own. 
 This would be reckoning our age chron- 
 ologically, and estini.'iting our advance 
 by our number of years; when, in truth, 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 103 
 
 we should regard only the state of so- 
 ciety, the knowledge, the skill, the 
 capital, and the enterprise ^Yhich be- 
 long to our times. We liave been 
 transferred from the stock of Europe, 
 in a comparatively enlightened age, and 
 our civilization and improvement date 
 as far back as her own. Iler original 
 history is also our original history ; and 
 if, since the moment of separation, she 
 bae gone ahead of us in some respects, 
 it may be said, without violating truth, 
 thi.t we have kept up in others, and, in 
 others again, are ahead ourselves. We 
 are jo legislate, then, with regard to 
 thep.esent actual state of society; and 
 our own experience shows us, that, 
 commencing manufactures at the pres- 
 ent highly enlightened and emulous 
 moment, we need not resort to the 
 clumsy helps with which, in less auspi- 
 cious times, governments have sought 
 to enable the ingenuity and industry of 
 their people to hobble along. 
 
 The English cotton manufactures 
 began about the commencement of the 
 last reign. Ours can hardly be said to 
 iave commenced with any earnestness, 
 until the application of the power-loom, 
 in ISU, not more than ten years ago. 
 Kow, Sir, I hardly need again speak of 
 its progress, its present extent, or its 
 assurance of future enlargement. In 
 some sorts of fabrics we are already ex- 
 porters, and the products of our facto- 
 ries are, at this moment, in the South 
 American markets. We see, then, 
 •what can be done without prohibition 
 or extraordinary protection, because we 
 see what has been done; and I venture 
 to predict, that, in a few yeai's, it 
 will be thought w^onderful that these 
 branches of manufactures, at lea,st, 
 should have beeu thought to require 
 additional aid from government. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the best apology for 
 laws of prohibition and laws of mo- 
 nopoly will be found in that state of 
 society, not only unenlightened but 
 sluggish, in which they are most gener- 
 ally established. Private industry, in 
 those days, required strong provocatives, 
 which governments were seeking to ad- 
 minister bv these means. Something 
 
 was wanted to actuate and stimulate 
 men, and the prospects of such profits 
 as would, in our times, excite un- 
 bounded competition, would hardly 
 move the sloth of former ages. In 
 some in.stances, no doubt, these laws 
 produced an effect, which, in that 
 period, would not have taken place 
 without them. But our age is of a 
 wiiolly different character, and its legis- 
 lation takes another turn. Society is 
 full of excitement; competition comes 
 in place of monopoly; and intelligence 
 and industry ask only for fair play and 
 an open field. Profits, indeed, in such 
 a state of things, will be small, but 
 they will be extensively diffused; prices 
 will be low, and the great body of the 
 people prosperous and happy. It is 
 %vorthy of remark, that, from the opera- 
 tion of these causes, commercial wealth, 
 while it is increased beyond calculation 
 in its general aggregate, is, at the same 
 time, broken and diminished in its sub- 
 divisions. Commercial prosperity should 
 be judged of, therefore, rather from the 
 extent of trade, than from the magni- 
 tude of its apparent profits. It has 
 been remarked, that Spain, certainly 
 one of the poorest nations, made veiy 
 great profits on the amount of her 
 trade ;- but with little other benefit than 
 the enriching of a few individuals and 
 companies. Profits to the P^nglish 
 merchants engaged in the Levant and 
 Turkey trade were formerly very great, 
 and there were richer merchants in 
 England some centuries ago, consider- 
 ing the comparative value of money, 
 than at the present highly commercial 
 period. When the diminution of profits 
 arises from the extent of competition, it 
 indicates rather a salutary than an in- 
 jurious change.' 
 
 1 " The present equable diffusion of moder- 
 ate wealth taniiot be better illustrated, than br 
 remarkini,' that in this age many palaces and 
 superb mansions have been pulled down, or 
 converted to other purpo.«es, while none have 
 been erected on a like scale. The numberless 
 baronial castles and mansions, in all parts of 
 England, now in ruins, may all be adduced aa 
 examples of the decrease of inordinate wealtlu 
 On the other hand, the multiplication of com- 
 
104 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 The true course then, Sir, for us to 
 pursue, is, in my opinion, to consider 
 what our situation is; what our means 
 are : and how they can be best applied. 
 What ainount of population have we in 
 compari.'son with our extent of soil, 
 what amount of capital, and labor at 
 what price ? As to skill, knowledge, 
 and entei-prise, we may safely take it 
 for granted that in these particulars we 
 are on an equality with others. Keep- 
 ing these considerations in view, allow 
 me to examine two or three of those 
 provisions of the bill to which I feel 
 the strongest objections. 
 
 To begin with the article of iron. 
 Our whole annual consumption of this 
 article is supposed by the chairman of 
 the committee to be forty-eight or fifty 
 thousand tons. Let us suppose the 
 latter. The amount of our own manu- 
 facture he estimates, I think, at seven- 
 teen thousand tons. The present duty 
 on the imported article is $15 per ton, 
 and as this duty causes, of course, an 
 equivalent augmentation of the price of 
 tlie home manufacture, the whole in- 
 crease of price is equal to 8750,000 an- 
 nually. This sum we pay on a raw 
 material, and on an absolute necessary 
 of life. The bill proposes to raise the 
 duty from $15 to $22.50 per ton, which 
 would be equal to $1,125,000 on the 
 whole annual consumption. So that, 
 suppose the point of prohibition which 
 is aimed at by some gentlemen to be 
 attained, the consumers of the article 
 would pay this last-mentioned sum 
 every year to the producers of it, over 
 and above the price at which they coidd 
 supply themselves with the same article 
 from other sources. There would be no 
 mitigation of this burden, except from 
 the prospect, whatever that might be, 
 that iron would fall in value, by domes- 
 tic competition, after the importation 
 should be prohibited. It will be easy, 
 I think, to show that it cannot fall; and 
 supposing for the present that it shall 
 
 m 
 
 modious dwellings for the upper and middle 
 classes of soeit'ty, nnd the increased comforts 
 of all ranks, exhibit a piiture of individual hap- 
 piness, unknown in any other aj^e." — Sir G. 
 Blane's Lctttr to Lord Sj)tnct:r, in 1800. 
 
 not, the result will be, that we shalJ 
 pay annually the sum of $l,12.b,000, 
 constantly augmented, too, by increased 
 consumption of the article, to support a 
 bujfiness that cannot support itself. 
 
 It is of no consequence to the argu- 
 ment, that this sum is expended at 
 home; so it would be if we taxed the 
 people to support any other useless and 
 expensive establishment, to build an- 
 other Capitol, for example, or incur an 
 unnecessary expense of any sort. The 
 question still is. Are the money, time, 
 and labor well laid out in these cases ? 
 The present jirice of iron at Stockholm, 
 I am assured by importers, is $53 per 
 ton on board, $48 in the yard before 
 loading, and probably not far from $40 
 at the mines. Freight, insurance, &c. 
 may be fairly estimated at $15, to which 
 add our present duty of $15 more, and 
 these two last sums, together with the 
 cost on board at Stockholm, give $83 as 
 the cost of Swedes iron in our market. 
 In fact, it is said to have been sold last 
 year at $81.50 to $82 per ton. We per- 
 ceive, by this statement, that the cost 
 of the iron is doubled in reaching us 
 from the mine in which it is produced. 
 In other words, our present duty, with 
 the expense of transportation, gives an 
 advantage to the American over the 
 foreign manufacturer of one hundred 
 per cent. Why, then, cannot the iron 
 be manufactured at home? Our ore 
 is said to be as good, and some of it 
 better. It is under our feet, and the 
 chairman of the committee tells us that 
 it might be wrought by persons wlio 
 otherwise will not be employed. Why, 
 then, is it not wrought? Nothing 
 could be more sure of constant sale. It 
 is not an article of changeable fashion, 
 but of absolute, permanent necessity, 
 and such, therefore, as would always 
 meet a steady demand. Sir, I think it 
 would be well for the chairman of the 
 committee to revise liis premises, for I 
 am persuaded that there is an ingre- 
 dient properly belonging to the calcula- 
 tion which he has misstated or omitted. 
 Swedes iron in England pays a duty, I 
 think, of about $27 per ton; yet it is 
 imported in considerable quantities, 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 105 
 
 notwithstanding the vast capital, the 
 excellent coal, and, more important 
 than all perhaps, the highly improved 
 Btate of inland navigation in England; 
 although I am aware that the English 
 use of Swedes iron may be thought to 
 be owing in some degree to its superior 
 quality. 
 
 Sir, the true explanation of this ap- 
 pears to me to lie in the different prices 
 of labor; and here I apprehend is the 
 grand mistake in the argument of the 
 chairman of the committee. He says 
 it would cost the nation, as a nation, 
 nothing, to make our ore into iron. 
 Now, I think it would cost us precisely 
 that which we can worst afford; that is, 
 gi-eat labor. Although bar-iron is verj^ 
 properly considered a raw material in 
 respect to its various future uses, yet, 
 as bar-iron, the principal ingredient in 
 its cost is labor. Of manual labor, no 
 nation has more than a certain quantity, 
 nor can it be increased at will. As to 
 some operations, indeed, its place may 
 be supplied by machinery ; but there are 
 other services -which machinery cannot 
 perform for it, and which it must per- 
 form for itself. A most important ques- 
 tion for eveiy nation, as well as for 
 every individual, to propose to itself, is, 
 how it can best apply that quantity of 
 labor which it is able to perform. La- 
 bor is the great producer of wealth ; it 
 moves all other cr.uses. If it call ma- 
 chinery to its aid, it is still employed, 
 not only in using the machinery, but in 
 making it. Xow, with respect to the 
 quantity of labor, as we all know, dif- 
 ferent nations are differently circum- 
 Btanced. Some need, more than any 
 thing, work for hands, others require 
 hands for work ; and if we ourselves are 
 not absolutely in the latter class, we are 
 still most fortunately veiy near it. I 
 cannot find that we have those idle 
 hands, of which the chairman of the 
 committee speaks. The price of labor 
 is a conclusive and unanswerable refu- 
 tation of that idea; it is known to be 
 hitrher with us than in anv other civil- 
 ized state, and this is the gieatest of all 
 proofs of general happiness. Labor in 
 this country is independent and proud. 
 
 It has not to ask the patronage of capi- 
 tal, but capital solicits the aid of labor. 
 This is the general truth in regard to 
 the condition of our whole population, 
 although in the large cities there are 
 doubtless many exceptions. The mere 
 capacity to labor in common agricultu- 
 ral emplojnnents, gives to our young 
 men the assurance of independence. 
 We have been asked. Sir, by the chair- 
 man of the committee, in a tone of some 
 pathos, whether we wiU allow to the 
 serfs of Russia and Sweden the benefit 
 of making iron for us. Let me inform 
 the gentleman, Sir, that those same 
 serfs do not earn more than seven cents 
 a day, and that they work in these 
 mines for that compensation because 
 they are serfs. And let me ask the gen- 
 tleman further, whether we have any 
 labor in this country that cannot be 
 better employed than in a business 
 which does not j-ield the laborer more 
 than seven cents a day ? This, it ai> 
 pears to me, is the true question for our 
 consideration. There is no reason for 
 saying that we will work iron because 
 we have mountains that contain the ore. 
 AVe might for the same reason dig among 
 our rocks for the scattered grains of 
 gold and silver which might be found 
 there. The true inquiry is. Can w^e pro- 
 duce the article in a useful state at the 
 same cost, or nearly at the same cost, 
 or at any reasonable approximation to- 
 wards the same cost, at which we can 
 import it ? 
 
 Some general estimates of the price 
 and profits of labor, in those counti ies 
 from which we import our iron, might 
 be formed by comparing the reputed 
 products of different mines, and their 
 prices, with the number of hands em- 
 ployed. The mines of Danemora arc 
 said to yield about 4,000 tons, and to 
 employ in the mines twelve hundred 
 workmen. Sujipose this to be worth 
 $50 per ton ; any one will find by com- 
 putation, that the whole product would 
 not pay, in this coxmtry, for one quarter 
 part of the necessary labor. The whole 
 export of Sweden was estimated, a few 
 years ago, at 400,000 ship pounds, or 
 about 54,000 tons Comparing thia 
 
106 
 
 THE TARIFP. 
 
 product with the number of workmen 
 usually supposed to be employed in the 
 mines which produce iron for exporta- 
 tion, the result will not greatly differ 
 from the foregoing. These estimates 
 are general, and might not conduct us 
 to a precise result; but we know, from 
 iiilelligent travellers, and eye-witnesses, 
 that the price of labor in the Swedish 
 m'ues does not exceed seven cents a 
 day.^ 
 
 The true reason, Sir, why it is not our 
 policy to compel our citizens to manu- 
 facture our own iron, is that they are 
 far better employed. It is an unpro- 
 ductive business, and they are not poor 
 enough to be obliged to follow it. If 
 we had more of poverty, more of mis- 
 ery, and something of servitude, if we 
 had an ignorant, idle, starving popula- 
 tion, we might set up for iron makers 
 against the world. 
 
 The committee will take notice, Mr. 
 Chairman, that, under our present duty, 
 together with the expense of transpor- 
 tation, our manufactui-ers are able to 
 supply their own immediate neighbor- 
 hood ; and this proves the magnitude of 
 that substantial encom-agement which 
 these two causes concur to give. There 
 is little or no foreign iron, I presume, 
 used in the comity of Lancaster. This 
 is o\\'ing to the heavy expense of land 
 
 1 The price of labor in Russia may be pretty 
 well collected from Tooke's " View of the Rus- 
 sian Empire." " Tiie workmen in the mines 
 and tlie founderics are, indeed, all called mas- 
 ter-people; but they distinguish themselves into 
 masters, under-masters, apprentices, delvers, 
 servants, carriers, washers, and sejiarators. In 
 proportion to their ability their wages are regu- 
 lated, which proceed from fifteen to upwards 
 of thirty roubles per annum. The provisions 
 which they receive from the magazines are 
 deducted from this pay." The value of the 
 rouble at that time {179!)) was about twenty- 
 four pence sterling, or forty-live cents of our 
 money. 
 
 "By the edict of 1799," it is added, "a 
 laborer with a horse shall receive, daily, in 
 Bummer, twenty, and in winter, twelve co- 
 pecks; a laborer without a horse, in summer, 
 ten, in winter, eight copecks." 
 
 A copeck is the huiulredtk part of a rouble, 
 or about htilf a cent of our money. The price 
 of lalxir may have risen, in some degree, since 
 Ihut })eriod, but prvihably mn much. 
 
 carriage ; and as we recede farther from 
 the coa.st, the manufacturers are still 
 more completely secured, as to their own 
 immediate market, against the com]>e- 
 tition of the imported article. But 
 what they ask is to be allowed to supply 
 the sea-coast, at such a price as shall be 
 formed by adding to the cost at the 
 mines the expense of land carriage to 
 the sea; and this appears to me most 
 unreasonable. The effect of it would 
 be to compel the consimier to pay the 
 cost of two land transportations; for, in 
 the first place, the price of iron at the 
 inland furnaces will always be found to 
 be at, or not much below, the price of 
 the imported article in the seaport, and 
 the cost of transportation to the neigh- 
 borhood of the furnace; and to enable 
 the home product to hold a competition 
 with the imported in the seaport, the 
 cost of another transportation down- 
 ward, from the furnace to the coast, 
 must be added. Until our means of 
 inland commerce be improved, and the 
 charges of ti'ansportation by that means 
 lessened, it appears to me wholly im- 
 practicable, with such duties as any one 
 woiild think of proposing, to meet the 
 wishes of the manufacturers of this ar- 
 ticle. Suppose we were to add the duty 
 proposed by this bill, although it would 
 benefit the capital invested in works 
 near tlie sea and the navigable rivers, 
 yet the benefit would not extend far in 
 the interior. AVhere, then, are we to 
 stop, or what limit is proposed to us? 
 
 The freight of iron has been afforded 
 from Sweden to the United States as 
 low as eight dollars per ton. This is 
 not more than the price of fifty miles 
 of land carriage. Stockholm, therefore, 
 for the purpose of this argument, may 
 be considered as within fifty miles of 
 Philadelphia. Now, it is at once a just 
 and a strong view of this ca.se, to con- 
 sider, that there are, within fifty miles 
 of our market, vast multitudes of per- 
 sons who are willing to labor in the ]>ro- 
 duction of this article for us, at the rate 
 of seven cents per day, while we have 
 no labor which will not command, upon 
 the average, at least five or six times 
 that amount. The question is, then. 
 
THE TARIFF. 
 
 107 
 
 fihall we buy this article of these manu- 
 facturers, and suffer our own labor to 
 earn its greater reward, or shall we em- 
 ploy our own labor in a similar manu- 
 facture, and make up to it, by a tax on 
 consumers, the loss which it must neces- 
 sarily sustain. 
 
 I proceed. Sir, to the article of hemp. 
 Of this we imported last year, in round 
 numbers, 6,000 tons, paying a duty of 
 .|30 a ton, or $180,000 on the whole 
 amount; and this article, it is to be re- 
 membered, is consumed almost entirely 
 in the uses of navigation. The w^hole 
 burden may be said to fall on one in- 
 terest. It is said we can produce this 
 article if we will raise the duties. But 
 why is it not produced now? or why, at 
 least, have we not seen some speci- 
 mens ? for the present is a very high 
 duty, when expenses of importation are 
 added. Hemp was purchased at St. 
 Petersburg, last year, at §101.67 per 
 ton. Charges attending shipment, &c., 
 814.25. Freight may be stated at ,530 
 per ton, and our existing duty $30 more. 
 These three last sums, being the charges 
 of transportation, amount to a protec- 
 tion of near seventy-five per cent in 
 favor of the home manufacturer, if 
 there be any such. And we ought to 
 consider, also, that the price of hemp at 
 St. Petersburg is increased by all the 
 expense of transportation from the 
 place of growth to that port; so that 
 probably the whole cost of transporta- 
 tion, from the place of growth to our 
 market, including our duty, is equal to 
 the first cost of the article ; or, in other 
 words, is a protection in favor of our 
 own product of one hundred per cent. 
 
 And since it is stated that we have 
 great quantities of fine land for the pro- 
 duction of hemp, of which I have no 
 doubt, the question recurs. Why is it 
 not produced ? I speak of the water- 
 rotted hemp, for it is admitted that that 
 which is dew-rotted is not sufficiently 
 good for the requisite purposes. I can- 
 not say whether the cause be in climate, 
 in the process of rotting, or what else, 
 but the fact is certain, that there is 
 no American water-rotted hemp in the 
 market. We are acting, therefore, uj^on 
 
 an hyiwthesis. Is it not reasonable that 
 those who say that they can produce the 
 article shall at least prove the truth of 
 that allegation, before new taxes are 
 laid on those who use the foreign com- 
 modity ? Suppose this bill passes ; the 
 price of hemp is immediately raised 
 S>14.80 per ton, and this burden fall? 
 immediately on the ship-builder; and 
 no part of it, for the present, will go for 
 the benefit of the American grower, be- 
 cause he has none of the article thai 
 can be used, nor is it expected that much 
 of it will be produced for a considerable 
 time. Still the tax takes effect upon the 
 imported article; and the ship-owners, 
 to enable the Kentucky farmer to re- 
 ceive an additional $11 on his ton of 
 hemp, whenever he may be able to raise 
 and matnifacture it, pay, in the mean 
 time, an equal sum per ton into the 
 treasury on all the imported hemp which 
 they are still obliged to use ; and this is 
 called "protection"! Is this just or 
 fair ? A particular interest is here bur- 
 dened, not only for the benefit of an- 
 other particular interest, but biu'dened 
 also beyond that, for the benefit of the 
 treasury. It is said to be important for 
 the country that this article should be 
 raised in it; then let the country bear 
 the expense, and pay the bounty. If it 
 be for the good of the whole, let the 
 sacrifice be made by the whole, and not 
 by a part. If it be thought useful and 
 necessaiy, from political considerations, 
 to encourage the growth and manufac- 
 ture of hemp, government has abundant 
 means of doing it. It might give a di- 
 rect bounty, and such a measure would, 
 at least, distribute the burden equally; 
 or, as government itself is a great con- 
 sumer of this article, it might stipulate 
 to confine its own piuxhases to the home 
 product, so soon as it should be shown 
 to be of the proper quality. I see no 
 objection to this proceeding, if it be 
 thought to be an object to encourage 
 the production. It might easily, and 
 perhaps properly, be provided by law, 
 that the wavy should be supplied with 
 American hemp, the quality being good, 
 at any price not exceeding, by moie 
 than a given amount, the cuiTent price 
 
108 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 of foreign hemp in our market. Every 
 thing conspires to render some such 
 course preferable to the one now pro- 
 posed. The encouragement in thatvray 
 would be ample, and, if the experiment 
 should succeed, the whole oV>ject would 
 be gamed; and, if it should fail, no con- 
 siderable loss or evil would be felt by 
 any one. 
 
 I stated, some days ago, and I wish 
 k) renew the statement, what was the 
 amount of the proposed augmentation 
 of the duties on hon and hemp, in the 
 cost of a vessel. Take the case of a 
 common ship of three hundred tons, not 
 coppered, nor copper-fastened. It would 
 stand thus, by the present duties: — 
 
 14 J tons of iron, for hull, rigging, and 
 anchors, at S15 per ton, . . 
 
 10 tons of hemp, at S30, 
 
 40 bolts Russia duck, at ?2, .... 
 
 20 bolts Havens duck, at $1.25, . . . 
 
 On articles of ship-chandlery, cabin 
 furniture, hard-ware, &c., . . . 
 
 8217.50 
 
 300.00 
 
 80.00 
 
 25.00 
 
 40 00 
 S662.50 
 
 The bill proposes to add, — 
 
 $7.40 per ton on iron, which will be . $107.30 
 $14.80 per ton on hemp, equal to . . 148.00 
 And on duck, by the late amendment 
 
 of the bill, say 25 per cent, . . 25.00 
 
 $280.30 
 
 But to the duties on iron and hemp 
 should be added those paid on copper, 
 whenever that article is used. By the 
 statement which I furnished the other 
 day, it a]ipt'ared that the duties received 
 by government on articles used in the 
 construction of a vessel of three hundred 
 and fifty-nine tons, with copper fasten- 
 ings, amounted to .?],()5G. With the 
 augmentations of this bill, they would 
 bo equal to §1,400. 
 
 Now I cannot but flatter myself, Mr. 
 Chairn^.an, that, before the committee 
 will consent to this new burden upon 
 the shipping interest, it will very delib- 
 erately weigh the probable consequences. 
 I would again urgently solicit its atten- 
 tion to the condition of that interest. 
 We are told that government has pro- 
 tected it, by discriminating duties, and 
 by an exclusive right to the coasting 
 trade. But it would retain the coasting 
 
 trade by its own natural efforts, in like 
 manner, and with more certainty, than 
 it now retains any portion of foreign 
 trade. The discriminating duties are 
 now abolished, and while they existed, 
 they were nothing more than counter- 
 vailing measures ; not so much designed 
 to give our navigation an advantage 
 over that of other nations, as to put it 
 upon an equality, and we have, accord- 
 ingly, abolished ours, when they have 
 been willing to abolish theirs. Look to 
 the rate of freights. Were they ever 
 lower, or even so low? I ask gentle- 
 men who know, whether the harbor of 
 Charleston, and the river of Savannah, 
 be not crowded with ships seeking em- 
 ployment, and finding none? I would 
 ask the gentlemen from New Orleans, 
 if their magnificent Mississippi does 
 not exhibit, for furlongs, a forest of 
 ma.sts? The condition. Sir, of the ship- 
 ping interest is not that of those who 
 are insisting on high profits, or strug- 
 gling for monopoly; but it is the condi- 
 tion of men content with the smallest 
 earnings, and anxious for their bread. 
 The freight of cotton has formerly been 
 three pence sterling, from Charleston to 
 Liverpool, in time of peace. It is now 
 I know not what, or how many fractions 
 of a penny; I think, however, it is stated 
 at five eighths. The producers, then, of 
 this great staple, are able, by means of 
 this navigation, to send it, for a cent a 
 pound, from their own doors to the best 
 market in the world. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I will now only re- 
 mind the committee that, while we are 
 proposing to add new burdens to the 
 shipping interest, a very different line 
 of policy is followed by our great com- 
 mercial and maritime rival. It seems 
 to be announced as the sentiment of the 
 government of England, and undoubt- 
 edly it is its real sentiment, that the 
 fii-st of all manufactures is the manufac- 
 ture of ships. A constant and wakeful 
 attention is paid to this interest, and 
 very important regulations, favorable to 
 it. have been adopted within the last 
 year, some nf which I will beg leave to 
 refer to, with the hope of exciting the 
 I notice, not only of tlie committee, buk 
 
THE TARIFF 
 
 109 
 
 i)f all others who may feel, as I do, a 
 deep interest in this subject. In the 
 first place, a general amendment has 
 taken place in the register acts, introduc- 
 ing many new provisions, and, among 
 others, the following: — 
 
 A direct mortgage of the interest of 
 a ship is allowed, without subjecting 
 the mortgagee to the responsibility of an 
 owner. 
 
 The proportion of interest lield by 
 each owner is exhibited in the register, 
 thereby facilitating both sales and mort- 
 gages, and giving a new value to ship- 
 ping among the moneyed classes. 
 
 Shares, in the ships of copartnerships, 
 may be registered as joint property, and 
 subject to the same rules as other part- 
 nership effects. 
 
 Ships may be registered in the name 
 of trustees, for the benefit of joint-stock 
 companies. 
 
 And many other regulations are adopt- 
 ed, with the same general view of ren- 
 dering the mode of holding the property 
 as convenient and as favorable as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 By another act, British registered ves- 
 sels, of every description, are allowed 
 to enter into the general and the coast- 
 ing trade in the India seas, and may 
 now trade to and from India, with any 
 part of the world except China. 
 
 By a third, all limitations and restric- 
 tions, as to latitude and longitude, are 
 removed from ships engaged in the 
 Southern whale-fishery. These regula- 
 tions, I presume, have not been made 
 without first obtaining the consent of 
 the East India Company; so true is it 
 found, that real encouragement of enter- 
 prise oftener consists, in our days, in 
 
 restraining or buying off monopolies 
 and prohibitions, than in imposing oi 
 extending them. 
 
 The trade with Ireland is turned into 
 a free coasting trade; light duties have 
 been reduced, and various other beneficial 
 arrangements made, and still others pro- 
 posed. I might add, that, in favor of 
 general commerce, and as showing their 
 confidence in the principles of liberal 
 intercourse, the British government lias 
 perfected the warehouse system, and 
 authorized a reciprocity of duties with 
 foreign states, at the discretion of the 
 Privy Council. 
 
 This, Sir, is the attention which our 
 great rival is paying to these important 
 subjects, and we may assure ourselves 
 that, if we do not cherish a proper sense 
 of our own interests, she will not only 
 beat us, but will deserve to beat us. 
 
 Sir, I will detain you no longer. 
 There are some parts of this bill which 
 I highly approve; there are others in 
 which I should acquiesce; but those to 
 which I have now stated my objections 
 appear to me so destitute of all justice, 
 so burdensome and so dangerous to that 
 interest which has steadily enriched, 
 gallantly defended, and proudly distin- 
 guished us, that nothing can prevail 
 upon me to give it my support. ^ 
 
 1 Since the delivery of this speech, an ar- 
 rival has brought London papers containing the 
 speech of the English Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer (Mr. Robinson), on the 2-3d of Febru- 
 ary last, in submitting to Parliament the annual 
 financial statement. Abundant confirmation 
 will be found in that statement of the remarks 
 made in the preceding speech, as to the prevail- 
 ing sentiment, in the English government, on the 
 general subject of prohibitory laws, and on the 
 silk manufacture and the wool tax pai-ticularly. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 This is commonly called Mr. Webster's 
 " Free Trade " speech. It has been found 
 difficult to select one among his many 
 speeches in support of the policy of Pro- 
 tection which would fully represent his 
 views on the subject ; but the reasons for 
 his change of opinion, and for his advocacy 
 
 of Protection, are fully stated in many of 
 the speeches printed in this volume, deliv- 
 ered after tlie year 1830. Perhaps as good 
 a statement as can be selected from his 
 many speeches on the Tariff, in explana- 
 tion of his change of position as to the 
 need, policy, and duty of protection to 
 
110 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 American manufactures, may be found in 
 liis speech dclivereil in the Senate of the 
 United States, on the 25th and 26th of July, 
 1846, on tiie Bill " To reduce the Duties on 
 Imports, and for other Purposes." In this 
 speech, he made the followinij frank avow- 
 al of the reasons which induced him to 
 reconsider and reverse his original opinions 
 on the subject : — 
 
 "But, Sir, before I proceed further with this 
 part of the case, I will take notice of what ap- 
 
 fiears, latterly, to be an attempt, by the repub- 
 ication of opinions and expressions, ar<^uments 
 and speeches of mine, at an earlier and later 
 period of life, to found airainst me a charge of 
 inconsistency, on this subject of the protective 
 policy of the country. Mr. President, if it be 
 an inconsistency to hold an opinion unon a sub- 
 ject at one time and in one state of circum- 
 stances, and to hold a different oiiinion upon the 
 same subject at another time and in a different 
 state of circumstances, I admit the charge. 
 Nay, Sir, I will go further; and in regard to 
 questions which, from their nature, do not de- 
 pend upon circumstances for their true and just 
 solution, I mean constitutional questions, if it be 
 an inconsistency to hold an opinion to-day, even 
 upon such a question, and fin that same ques- 
 tion to hold a different opinion a quarter of a 
 century afterwards, upon a more comprehensive 
 view of the whole subject, with a more thorough 
 investigation into the original purposes and ob- 
 jects of that Constitution, and especially after a 
 more thorough exposition of those objects and 
 purposes by those who framed it, and have been 
 trusted to' administer it, I should not shrink 
 even from that imputation. I hope I know 
 more of the Constitution of mv country than I 
 did when I was twenty years ofd. I hope I have 
 contemplated its great objects more broadly. I 
 hope I have read with deeper interest the .senti- 
 ments of the great men who framed it. I hope 
 I have studied with more care the condition of 
 the country when the convention assembled to 
 form it. And yet I do not know that I have 
 much to retract or to change on these points. 
 
 "But, Sir, I am of the opinion of a verj' 
 eminent person, who had occasion, not long 
 since, to speak of this topic in another place. 
 Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes 
 't citcumstances, are often justiliable. But 
 
 there is one sort of inconsistency which is cul 
 pable. It is the inconsistency between a man'a 
 conviction and his vote; between his conscience 
 and his conduct. No man shall ever charge me 
 with an inconsistency like that. And now. Sir, 
 allow me to say, that I am quite indifferent, or 
 ratiier thankful, to those conductors of the pub- 
 lic press who think they cannot do better than 
 now and then to spread'my poor opinions before 
 the public. 
 
 " 1 have said many times, and it is true, that, 
 up to the year 1824,' the people of that part of 
 the country- to which I belong, being addicted 
 to commerce, having been successful in com- 
 merce, their capital being very much engaged 
 in commerce, were averse to entering upon a 
 system of manufacturing operations. Every 
 member in Congress from the State of Massa- 
 chusetts, with the exception. I think, of one, 
 voted against the act of 1824. But what were 
 we to do ? Were we not bound, after 1817 and 
 1824, to consider that the policv of the country 
 was settled, had become settled, as a policv, to 
 protect the domestic industry of the country bv 
 solemn laws V The leading speech i w"hic'h 
 ushered in the act of 1824 was called a speech 
 for the 'American System.' The bill was car- 
 ried principally by the Middle States. Penn- 
 sylvania and New York would have it so ; and 
 what were we to do V Were we to stand aloof 
 from the occupations which others were pursuing 
 around us V Were we to pick clean teeth on a 
 constitutional doubt which a majority in the 
 councils of the nation had overruled? "No, Sir; 
 we had no option. All that was left us was to 
 fall in with the settled policy of the country; 
 because, if any thing can ever settle the policy 
 of the country, or if any thing can ever settle 
 the practical construction of the Constitution of 
 the country, it must be these repeated decisions 
 of Congress, and enactments of successive laws 
 conformable to these decisions. New England, 
 then, did fall in. She went into manufactur- 
 ing operations, not from original choice, but 
 from the necessity of the circumstances in 
 which the legislation of the country had jilaced 
 her. And, for one, I resolved then, and have 
 acted upon the resolution ever since, that, hav- 
 ing compelled the Eastern States to go into 
 these pursuits for a livelihood, the country was 
 bound to fulfil the just expectations which it 
 had inspired." 
 
 » That of Mr. Clay. 
 
THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 AN ARGUMENT MADE IX THE CASE OF GI15B0NS AND OGDEN IN THB 
 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY TERM, 1824. 
 
 [Tins was an appeal from the Court for 
 the Trial of Impeachments and Correc- 
 tion of Errors of the State of New York. 
 Aaron Ogden filed his bill in the Court of 
 Chancery of that State, against Thomas 
 Gibbons, setting forth the several acts of 
 the legislature thereof, enacted for the pur- 
 pose of securing to Robert R. Livingston 
 and Robert Fulton the exclusive navigation 
 of all the waters within tlie jurisdiction of 
 that State, witii boats moved by fire or 
 steam, for a term of years wliich had not 
 then expired ; and authorizing the Chan- 
 cellor to award an injunction, restraining 
 any person whatever from navigating those 
 waters with boats of that description. The 
 bill stated an assignment from Livingston 
 and Fulton to one John K. Livingston, and 
 from him to the comphiinant, Ogden, of 
 the riglit to navigate the waters between 
 Elizabethtown, and other places in New 
 Jersey, and the city of New York ; and that 
 Gibbons, the defendant below, was in pos- 
 session of two steamboats, called the Stou- 
 dingcr and the Bellona, which were actually 
 employed in running between New York 
 and Elizabethtown, in violation of the ex- 
 clusive privilege conferred on tlie complain- 
 ant, and praying an injunction to restrain 
 the said Gibbons from using the said boats, 
 or any other propelled by fire or steam, in 
 navigating the waters within tlie territory 
 of New York. 
 
 The injunction having been awarded, the 
 answer of Gibbons was filed, in whicii he 
 stated, that the boats employed by him 
 were duly enrolled and licensed to be em- 
 ployed in carrying on the coasting trade, 
 under the act of Congress, passed tiie 18th 
 of February, 1793, ch. 8, entitled, " An Act 
 for enrolling and licensing shii)s and vessels 
 to be employed in the coasting trade and 
 fisheries, and for regulating the same." 
 And the defendant insisted on his right, in 
 virtue of such licenses, to navigate the 
 waters between Elizabethtown and the city 
 of New York, the said acts of the legisla- 
 ture of the State of New York to the con- 
 trary notwithstanding. At the hearing, the 
 Chancellor perpetuated the injunction, be- 
 
 ing of the opinion that the said acts were 
 not repugnant to the Constitution and laws 
 of tlie United States, and were valid. This 
 decree was aflSrincd in the Court for the 
 Trial of Impeachments and Correction of 
 Errors, wliich is the highest court of law 
 and equity in tlie State of New York be- 
 fore which the cause could be carried, and 
 it was thereupon carried up to the Supreme 
 Court of the L'nited States by appeal. 
 
 The following argument was made by 
 Mr. Webster, for the plaintiff in error.] 
 
 It is admitted, that there is a very re- 
 spectable weight of authority in favor 
 of the decision which is sought to be 
 reversed. The laws in question, I am 
 aware, have been deliberately re-enacted 
 by the legislature of Xew York; and 
 they have also received the sanction, 
 at different times, of all her judicial 
 tribunals, than whicli there are few, if 
 any, in the country, more justly entitled 
 to respect and deference. The disposi- 
 tion of the court will be, undoubtedly, 
 to support, if it can, laws so passed and 
 so sanctioned. I admit, therefore, that 
 it is justly expected of us that we sliould 
 make out a clear case; and unless we do 
 so, we cannot hope for a reversal. It 
 should be remembered, however, that 
 the whole of this branch of power, aa 
 exercised by this court, is a power of 
 revision. The question must be decided 
 by the State courts, and decided in a 
 particular manner, before it can be 
 brought here at all. Such decisions 
 alone give this court jurisdiction; and 
 therefore, while they are to he respected 
 as the judgments of learned judges, they 
 are yet in the condition of all decisions 
 fi-om which the law allows an appeal. 
 
112 
 
 THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 It will not be a waste of time to ad- 
 vert to the existing state of the facts 
 connected with the subject of this liti- 
 gation. The use of steamboats on the 
 coasts and in the bays and rivers of the 
 country, has become very general. The 
 intercourse of its different parts essen- 
 tially depends upon this mode of con- 
 veyance and transportation. Rivers and 
 bays, in many cases, form the divisions 
 between States; and thence it is obvious, 
 that, if the States should make regula- 
 tions for the navigation of these waters, 
 and such regulations should be repug- 
 nant and hostile, embarrassment would 
 necessarily be caused to the general 
 intercourse of the community. Such 
 events have actually occurred, and have 
 created the existing state of things. 
 
 By the law of Xew York, no one can 
 navigate the bay of New York, the Xorth 
 River, the Sound, the lakes, or any of 
 the waters of that State, by steam-ves- 
 sels, without a license from the grantees 
 of New Y'ork, under penalty of forfeit- 
 ure of the vessel. 
 
 By the law of the neighboring State 
 of Connecticut, no one can enter her 
 waters with a steam- vessel having such 
 license. 
 
 By the law of Xew Jersey, if any citi- 
 zen of that State shall be restrained, 
 under the Xew Y''ork law, from using 
 steamboats between the ancient shores 
 of New Jersey and New Y'ork, he shall 
 be entitled to an action for damages, in 
 New Jersey, with treble costs against 
 the party who thus restrains or impedes 
 him under the law of New York ! This 
 act of New Jersey is called an act of 
 retortion against the illegal and op- 
 pressive legislation of New Y'ork; and 
 seems to be defended on those grounds 
 of public law which justify reprisals be- 
 tween independent States. 
 
 It will hardly be contended, that all 
 these acts are consistent with the laws 
 and Constitution of the United States. 
 If there is no power in the general gov- 
 ernment to control this extreme bel- 
 ligerent legislation of the States, the 
 powers of the government are essentially 
 deficient in a most important and inter- 
 esting paiticular. The present coutro- 
 
 versy respects the earliest of these State 
 laws, those of New Y'ork. On these, 
 this court is now to pronounce; and if 
 they should be declared to be valid and 
 operative, I hope somebody will point 
 out where the State right stops, and on 
 what grounds the acts of other States 
 are to be held inoperative and void. 
 
 It will be necessary to advert more 
 particularly to the laws of New York, 
 as they are stated in the record. The 
 first was passed March 19th, 1787. By 
 this act, a sole and exclusive right was 
 granted to John Fitch, of making and 
 using every kind of boat or vessel im- 
 pelled by steam, in all creeks, rivers, 
 bays, and waters within the territory 
 and jurisdiction of New York for four- 
 teen years. 
 
 On the 27th of March, 1798. an act 
 was passed, on the suggestion that Fitch 
 was dead, or had withdrawn from the 
 State without having made any attempt 
 to use his privilege, repealing the grant 
 to him, and conferring similar privileges 
 on Robert R. Livingston, for the term of 
 twenty years, on a suggestion, made by 
 him, that he was possessor of a mode of 
 applying the steam-engine to projiel a 
 boat, on new and advantageous prin- 
 ciples. On the 5th of April, 1803, an- 
 other act was passed, by which it was 
 declared, that the rights and privileges 
 granted to Robert R. Livingston by the 
 last act should be extended to him and 
 Robert Fulton, for twenty years from 
 the passing of the act. Then there is 
 the act of April 11, 1808, purporting to 
 extend the monopoly, in point of time, 
 five years for every additional boat, the 
 whole duration, however, not to exceed 
 thirty years ; and forbidding any and all 
 persons to navigate the waters of the 
 State with any steam boat or vessel, 
 without the license of Livingston and 
 Fulton, under penalty of forfeiture of 
 the boat or vessel. And lastly comes 
 the act of April 9, 1811, for enforcing 
 the provisions of the last-mentioned act, 
 and declaring, that the forfeiture of the 
 boat or vessel found navigating against 
 the provisions of the previous acts shall 
 be deemed to accrue on the day on which 
 such boat or vessel should navigate the 
 
THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 113 
 
 waters cf the State; and Lliiit Living- 
 ston and Fulton might immediately have 
 an action for such boat or vessel, in like 
 manner as if they themselves had been 
 dispossessed thereof by force ; and that, 
 on bringing any such suit, the defendant 
 therein should be prohibited, by injunc- 
 tion, from removing the boat or vessel 
 out of the State, or using it within the 
 State. There art- one or two other acts 
 mentioned in tlie pleadings, which prin- 
 cipally respect the time allowed for com- 
 plying with the condition of the grant, 
 and are not material to the discussion of 
 the case. 
 
 By these acts, then, an exclusive right 
 is given to Livingston and Fulton to use 
 steam navigation on all tiie waters of 
 New York, for thirty years from 1808. 
 
 It is not necessary to recite the sev- 
 eral conveyances and agreements, stated 
 in the record, by which Ogden, the plain- 
 tiff below, derives title under Living- 
 ston and Fulton to the exclusive use 
 of part of these waters for steam navi- 
 gation. 
 
 The appellant being owner of a steam- 
 boat, and being found navigating the 
 rt'aters between New Jersey and the city 
 of New York, over which waters Ogden, 
 the plaintiff below, claims an exclusive 
 right, under Livingston and Fulton, this 
 bill was tiled against him by Ogden, 
 in October, 1818, and an injunction 
 granted, restraining him from such use 
 of his boat. This injunction was made 
 perpetual, on the final hearing of the 
 cause, in the Court of Ciiancery; and 
 the decree of the Chancellor has been 
 duly affirmed in the Court of Errors. 
 The right, therefore, which the plaintiff 
 below asserts, to have and maintain his 
 injunction, depends obviously on the 
 general validity of the New York laws, 
 and especially on their force and opera- 
 tion as against the right set up by the 
 defendant. This right he states in his 
 answer to be, that he is a citizen of New 
 Jersey, and owner of the steamboat in 
 question ; that the boat is a vessel of 
 more than twenty tons burden, duly en- 
 rolled and licensed for carrying on the 
 coasting trade, and intended to be em- 
 ployed by him in that trade, between 
 
 Elizabetlitown, in New Jersey, and the 
 city of New York ; and that it was ac- 
 tually employed in navigating between 
 those places at the time of, and until 
 notice of, the injunction from the Court 
 of Chancery was served on him. 
 
 On these pleadings the substantial 
 question is raised. Are these laws such 
 as the legislature of New York has a 
 right to pass? If su, do they, secondly, 
 in their operation, interfere with any 
 right enjoyed under the Constitution and 
 laws of the United States, and are they 
 therefore void, as far as such interfer- 
 ence extends? 
 
 It may be well to state again their 
 general purport and effect, and the pur- 
 port and effect of the other State laws 
 which have been enacted by way of re- 
 taliation. 
 
 A steam-vessel, of any description, 
 going to New York, is forfeited to the 
 representatives of Livingston and Ful- 
 ton, unless she have their license. Going 
 from New York or elsewhere to Con- 
 necticut, she is prohibited from entering 
 the waters of that State if she have such 
 license. 
 
 If the representatives of Livingston 
 and Fulton in New York carry into ef- 
 fect, by judicial process, the provision, 
 of the New York laws, against any citi- 
 zen of New Jersey, they expose them- 
 selves to a statute action in New Jersey 
 for all damages, and treble costs. 
 
 The New York laws extend to all 
 steam-vessels; to steam frigates, steam 
 ferry-boats, and all intermediate classes. 
 They extend to public as well as private 
 ships; and to vessels employed in for- 
 eign commerce, as well as to those em- 
 ployed in the coasting trade. 
 
 The remedy is as summary as the 
 grant itself is ample; for immediate 
 confiscation, without seizm-e, trial, or 
 judgment, is the penalty of infringe- 
 ment. 
 
 In regard to these acts, I shall con- 
 tend, in the first place, that they exceed 
 the power of the legislature; and, sec- 
 ondly, that, if they could be considered 
 valid for any purpose, they are void 
 still, as against any right enjoyed unuer 
 the laws of the United States with which 
 
 8 
 
114 
 
 THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 they oome iii collision ; aud that in this 
 case they are found interfering with such 
 rights. 
 
 I shall contend that the power of Con- 
 gress to regulate commerce is complete 
 and entire, and, to a certain extent, 
 necessarily exclusive; that the acts in 
 question are regulations of commerce, 
 in a most important particular, af- 
 fecting it in those respects in which 
 it is under the exclusive authority of 
 Congress. I state this first proposi- 
 tion guardedly. I do not mean to 
 Bay, that all regulations which may, in 
 their operation, affect commerce, are ex- 
 clusively in the power of Congi-ess ; but 
 that such power as has been exercised 
 in this case does not remain with the 
 States. Nothing is more complex than 
 commerce; and in such an age as this, 
 no words embrace a wider field than 
 commercial ret/ulation. Almost all the 
 business and intercourse of life may be 
 connected incidentally, more or less, 
 with commercial regulations. But it is 
 only necessary to apply to this part of 
 the Constitution the well-settled rules of 
 construction. Some powers are held to 
 be exclusive in Congress, from the use 
 of exclusive words in the grant; others, 
 fi-om the prohibitions on the States to 
 exercise similar powers; and others, 
 again, from the nature of the powers 
 themselves. It has been by this mode 
 of reasoning that the court has adjudi- 
 cated many important questions; and 
 the same mode is proper here. And, as 
 bome powers have been held to be exclu- 
 bive, and others not so, under the same 
 form of expression, from the nature of 
 the dili'ereut powers respectively; so 
 where the power, on any one subject, is 
 given in general words, like the power 
 to regulate commerce, the true method 
 of construction will be to consider of 
 what parts the grant is composed, and 
 which of those, from the nature of the 
 thing, ought to be considered exclusive. 
 The riglit set up in this case, under the 
 laws of New York, is a monopoly. Now 
 I think it very reasonable to say, that 
 the Constitution never intended to leave 
 with the States the power of granting 
 monopolies either of trade or of naviga- 
 
 tion ; and therefore, that, as to this, the 
 commercial power is exclusive in Con- 
 gress. 
 
 It is in vain to look for a precise and 
 exact definition of the powers of Con- 
 gress on several subjects. The Consti- 
 tution does not undertake the task of 
 making such exact definitions. In con- 
 ferring powers, it proceeds by the way 
 of enumeration, stating the powers con- 
 ferred, one after another, in few words ; 
 and where the power is general or com- 
 plex in its natui-e, the extent of the 
 grant must necessarily be judged of, and 
 limited, by its object, and by the nature 
 of the power. 
 
 Few things are better kno^NTi than the 
 immediate causes which led to the adop- 
 tion of the present Constitution; and 
 there is nothing, as I think, clearer, than 
 that the prevailmg motive was to regu- 
 late commerce; to rescue it from the em- 
 barrassing and destructive consequences 
 resulting from the legislation of so many 
 different States, and to place it under 
 the protection of a uniform law. The 
 great objects were commerce and reve- 
 nue; and they were objects indissolubly 
 connected. By the Confederation, divers 
 restrictions had been imposed on the 
 States; but these had not been fomid 
 sufficient. No State, it is true, could 
 send or receive an embassy; nor make 
 any treaty ; nor enter into any compact 
 with another State, or with a foreign 
 power; nor lay duties interfering with 
 treaties which had been entered into by 
 Congress. But all these were found to 
 be far short of what the actual condition 
 of the country required. The States 
 could still, each for itself, regulate 
 commerce, and tlie consequence was a 
 perpetual jarrhig and hostility of com 
 mercial regulation. 
 
 In the history of the times, it is ao 
 cordingly found, that the great topic, 
 urged on all occasions, as showing ihe 
 necessity of a new and different govern- 
 ment, was the state of trade and com- 
 merce. To benefit and improve these 
 was a great object in itself ; and it be- 
 came greater wlien it was regarded as the 
 only means of enabling the country to 
 pay the public debt, and to do justice to 
 
THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND UJDEN. 
 
 llo 
 
 those who havl most effectually hibored 
 for its iiulepeudeuce. The leading state 
 papers of the time are full of this topic. 
 Tiie Xew Jersey resolutions ^ complain 
 that the regulation of trade was in the 
 power of the several States, within their 
 separate jurisdiction, to such a degree 
 as to involve many difficulties and em- 
 barrassments; and they express an ear- 
 nest opinion, that the sole and exclusive 
 power of regulating trade wdth foreign 
 states ought to be in Congress. Mr. 
 AVitherspoon's motion in Congress, in 
 1781, is of the same general character; 
 and the report of a committee of that 
 body, in 1785, is still more emphatic. 
 It declares that Congress ought to pos- 
 sess the sole and exclusive power of 
 regulating trade, as well with foreign 
 nations as between the States.- The 
 resolutions of Virginia, in January, 
 17SG, which were the immediate cause 
 of the Convention, put forth this same 
 great object. Indeed, it is the onty ob- 
 ject stated in those resolutions. There 
 is not another idea in the whole docu- 
 ment. The sole purpose for which the 
 delegates assembled at Annapolis was to 
 devise means for the uniform regulation 
 of trade. They found no means but in 
 a general government ; and they recom- 
 mended a convention to accomplish that 
 pm-pose. Over whatever other interests 
 of the country this government may 
 diffuse its benefits and its blessings, it 
 will always be true, as matter of histor- 
 ical fact, that it had its immediate origin 
 in the necessities of commerce ; and for 
 its unmediate object, the relief of those 
 necessities, by removing their causes, 
 and by establishing a uniform and steady 
 system. It will be easy to show, by 
 reference to the discussions in the sev- 
 eral State conventions, the prevalence of 
 the same general topics ; and if any one 
 would look to the proceedings of several 
 of the States, especially to those of 
 Massachusetts and Xew York, he would 
 see very plainly, by the recorded lists 
 of votes, that wherever this commer- 
 cial necessity was most strongly felt, 
 there the proposed new Constitution had 
 
 I 1 Laws U. S., p. 28, Bioren and Duane's ed. 
 » 1 Laws U. S., p. 50. 
 
 most frienils. In the New Ydrk con- 
 vention, the argument arising from 
 this consideration was strongly pressed, 
 by the distinguished person ^ whose 
 name is connected with the present ques- 
 tion. 
 
 We do not find, in the history of the 
 fonnatiou and adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion, that any man sjieaks of a general 
 concurrent power, in the regulation of 
 foreign and domestic trade, as still re- 
 siding in the States. The very object 
 intended, more than any other, was to 
 take away such power. If it had not so 
 I^rovided, the Constitution would not 
 have been worth accepting. 
 
 I contend, therefore, that the people 
 intended, in establishing the Constitu- 
 tion, to transfer from the several States 
 to a general government those high and 
 important powers over commerce, which, 
 in their exercise, were to maintain a 
 uniform and general system, from the 
 very natm'e of the case, these powers 
 must be exclusive; that is, the higher 
 branches of commercial regulation must 
 be exclusively conmiitted to a single 
 hand. "What is it that is to be recu- 
 lated? Not the commerce of the several 
 States, respectively, but the commerce 
 of the United States. Henceforth, the 
 commerce of the States was to be a unit, 
 and the system by which it was to exist 
 and be governed must necessarily be 
 complete, entire, and uniform. Its char- 
 acter was to be described in the flag 
 which waved over ^t, E pluribus unu.m. 
 Xow, how could individual States assert 
 a right of concuiTcnt legislation, in a 
 case of this sort, without manifest en- 
 croachment and confusion? It should 
 be repeated, that the words used in the 
 Constitution, "to regulate commerce," 
 are so very general and extensive, that 
 they may be construed to cover a vast 
 field of legislation, part of which has 
 always been occupied by State laws; and 
 therefore the words must have a reason- 
 able construction, and the power should 
 be considered as exclusively vested in 
 Congress so far, and so far only, as the 
 nature of the power requh-es. And I 
 insist, that the natm-e of the case, aud 
 8 Chancellor Livingston. 
 
116 
 
 THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 of the power, did imperiously require, 
 thut such important authority as that of 
 granting monopolies of trade and navi- 
 gation should not be considered as still 
 retained by the States. 
 
 It is apparent from the prohibitions 
 on the power of the States, that the 
 general concm-rent power -was not sup- 
 posed to be left with them. And the 
 exception out of these prohibitions of 
 the inspection laws proves this still 
 more clearly. "Which most concerns 
 the commerce of this country, that New 
 York and Virginia should have an un- 
 controlled power to establish thek in- 
 spection of 'flour and tobacco, or that 
 they should have an uncontrolled power 
 of granting either a monopoly of trade 
 in their own ports, or a monopoly of 
 navigation over all the waters leading to 
 those ports? Yet the argument on the 
 other side must be, that, although the 
 Constitution has sedulously guarded and 
 limited the first of these powers, it has 
 left the last wholly unlinuted and un- 
 controlled. 
 
 But although much has been said, in 
 the disciLssion on former occasions, about 
 this supposed concurrent power in the 
 States, I find great difficulty in under- 
 standing what is meant by it. It is 
 generally qualified by saying, that it is 
 a power by which the States could pass 
 laws on subjects of commercial regula- 
 tion, which would be valid until Con- 
 gress should pass other laws controlling 
 them, or inconsistent AA-ith them, and 
 that then the State laws must yield. 
 What sort of concurrent powers are 
 these, which cannot exist together? In- 
 deed, the very reading of the clause in 
 the Constitution must put to flight this 
 notion of a general concurrent power. 
 The Constitution was formed for all the 
 States -, and Congress was to have power 
 to regulate commerce. Now, what is 
 the import of this, but that Congress is 
 to give the ride, to establish the system, 
 to exercise the control over the subject? 
 And can more than one power, in cases 
 of this sort, give the rule, establish the 
 system, or exercise the control? As it 
 is not contended that the power of Con- 
 gress is to be exercised by a supervision 
 
 of State legislation, and as it is cleai 
 that Congress is to give the general rule, 
 I contend that this power of giving the 
 general rule is transferred, by the Con- 
 stitution, from the States to Congiess, 
 to be exercised as that body may see fit ; 
 and consequently, that all those high 
 exercises of power, which might be 
 considered as giving the rule, or estah 
 lishing the system, in regard to great 
 commercial interests, are necessarily left 
 with Congress alone. Of this character 
 I consider monopolies of trade or navi- 
 gation; embargoes; the system of navi- 
 gation laws; the countervailing laws, as 
 against foreign states; and other im- 
 portant enactments respecting our con- 
 nection with such states. It appears to 
 me a most reasonable construction to 
 say, that in these respects the power of 
 Congi-ess is exclusive, from the nature 
 of the power. If it be not so, where is 
 the limit, or who shall fix a boundary 
 for the exercise of the power of the 
 States? Can a State grant a monopoly 
 of trade? Can New York shut her 
 ports to all but her own citizens? Can 
 she refuse admission to ships of particu- 
 lar nations? The argimient on the other 
 side is, and must be, that she might do 
 all these things, until Congress should 
 revoke her enactments. And this is 
 called concurrent legislation ! "What con- 
 fusion such notions lead to is obvious 
 enough. A power m the States to do 
 any thing, and every thing, in regard to 
 connnerce, till Congress shall undo it, 
 would suppose a state of things at least 
 as bad as that which existed before the 
 present Constitution. It is the true wis- 
 dom of these governments to keep their 
 action as distinct as possible. The 
 general government shoidd not seek to 
 operate where the States can operate 
 with more advantage to the community; 
 nor should the States encroach on 
 ground which the public good, as well 
 as the Constitution, refers to tlie exclu- 
 sive control of Congress. 
 
 If the present state of things, these 
 laws of New York, the laws of Con- 
 necticut, and the laws of New Jersey, 
 had been all presented, in the conven- 
 tion of New York, to llie eminent per- 
 
rHE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 117 
 
 son whose name is on this record, and 
 who acted on that occasion so impoi'tant 
 apart; if he had been told, that, after 
 all he had said in favor of the new gov- 
 ernment, and of its sahxtary effects on 
 conunercial regulations, the time woidd 
 ye*; come when the Xorth River would 
 be shut up by a monoisolj' from New 
 York, the Sound interdicted by a penal 
 law of Connecticut, reprisals authorized 
 by New Jersey against citizens of New 
 YoiK, and when one could not cross a 
 ferry without transshipment, does any 
 one suppose he would have admitted all 
 this as compatible with the government 
 which he was recommending? 
 
 This doctrine of a general concurrent 
 power in the States is insidious and 
 dangerous. If it be admitted, no one 
 ^an say where it will stop. The States 
 may legislate, it is said, wherever Con- 
 tji-ess has not made a plenary exercise of 
 its power. But who is to judge whether 
 Congress has made this plenary exercise 
 of power? Congress has acted on this 
 power; it has done all that it deemed 
 wise; and are the States now to do 
 whatever Congress has left undone? 
 Congress makes such rules as, in its 
 judgment, the case requires; and those 
 niles, whatever they are, constitute the 
 system. 
 
 All useful regulation does not consist 
 in restraint; and that which Congress 
 sees fit to leave free is a part of its regu- 
 lation, as much as the rest. 
 
 The practice under the Constitution 
 sufficiently evinces, that this portion of 
 the commercial power is exclusive in 
 Congi'ess. TVHien, before this instance, 
 have the States granted monopolies? 
 A\Tien, until now, have they interfered 
 with the na\'igation of the country? 
 The pilot laws, the health laws, or quar- 
 antine laws, and various regulations of 
 that class, which have been recogiiized 
 by Congress, are no arginnents to prove, 
 even if they are to be called commercial 
 regulations (which they are not), that 
 other regulations, more directly and 
 strictly commercial, are not solely with- 
 in the power of Congress. There is a 
 Bingular fallacy, as I venture to think, 
 in the argument of very learned and 
 
 most respectable persons on this sub- 
 ject. That argument alleges, that the 
 States have a concurrent power with 
 Congress of regulating commerce; and 
 the proof of this position is, that the 
 States have, Avithout any question of their 
 right, passed acts respecting turnpike 
 roads, toll-bridges, and ferries. 'J'he.se 
 are declared to be acts of commercial 
 regulation, affecting not only the in- 
 terior commerce of the State itself, but 
 also commerce between different States. 
 Thei-efore, as all these are commercial 
 regulations, and are yet acknowledged 
 to be rightfully established by the States, 
 it follows, as is supposed, that the States 
 must have a concurrent power to regulate 
 commerce. 
 
 Now, what is the inevitable conse- 
 quence of this mode of reasoning? 
 Does it not admit the power of Con- 
 gress, at once, upon aU these minor ob- 
 jects of legislation? If all these be 
 regulations of commerce, within the 
 meaning of the Constitution, then cer- 
 tainly Congress, having a concurrent 
 power to regulate commerce, may estab- 
 lish ferries, turnpike-roads, and bridges, 
 and provide for all this detail of interior 
 legislation. To sustain the interference 
 of the State in a high concern of mari- 
 time commerce, the argument adopts a 
 principle which acknowledges the right 
 of CongTCSs over a vast scope of internal 
 legislation, which no one has heretofore 
 supposed to be within its powers. But 
 this is not all; for it is admitted that, 
 when Congress and the States have 
 power to legislate over the same subject, 
 the power of Congress, when exercised, 
 controls or extinguishes the State power; 
 and therefore the consequence would 
 seem to follow, from the argument, that 
 all State legislation over such subject* 
 as have been mentioned is, at all times, 
 liable to the superior power of Congress • 
 a consequence which no one would ad- 
 mit for a moment. The truth is, in my 
 judgment, that all these things are, in 
 their general character, rather regula- 
 tions of police than of commerce, in 
 the constitutional understanding of that 
 term. A road, indeed, may be a matter 
 of great commercial concern. In many 
 
118 
 
 THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 cases it is so: and -svhen it is so, there is 
 n.) doubt of tlie power of Congress to 
 make it. But, generally speaking, roads, 
 and bridges, and ferries, though of course 
 they affect commerce and intercourse, do 
 not possess such importance and eleva- 
 *;iou as to be deemed commercial regula- 
 tions. A reasonable construction must 
 be given to the Constitution ; and such 
 construction is as necessary to the just 
 poTver of the States, as to the authority 
 of Congress. Quarantine laws, for ex- 
 ample, may Ije considered as affecting 
 commerce; yet they are, in tlieir nature, 
 health laws. In England, we speak of 
 the power of regulating commerce as in 
 Parliament, or the king, as arbiter of 
 commerce ; yet the city of London enacts 
 health laws. Would any one infer from 
 that circumstance, that the city of Lon- 
 don had concurrent power with Parlia- 
 ment or the crown to regulate commerce? 
 or that it might grant a monopoly of 
 the navigation of the Thames? AVhile 
 a health law is reasonable, it is a health 
 law; but if, under, color of it, enact- 
 ments should be made for other pur- 
 poses, such enactments might be void. 
 
 In the discussion in the New York 
 courts, no small reliance was placed on 
 the law of that State prohibiting the 
 importation of slaves, as an examj^le 
 of a commercial regulation enacted by 
 State authority. That law may or may 
 not be constitutional and valid. It 
 has been referred to generally, but its 
 particular provisions have not been 
 stated. When they are more clearly 
 seen', its character may be better deter- 
 mined. 
 
 It might further be argued, that the 
 power of Congress over these high 
 branches of commerce is exclusive, 
 from the consideration that Congress 
 possesses an exclusive admiralty juris- 
 diction. That it does possess such 
 exclusive jurisdiction will hardly be 
 contested. No State pretends to exer- 
 cise any jurisdiction of that kind. The 
 States abolisiied their courts of admi- 
 ralty, when the Constitution went into 
 operation. Over these waters, there- 
 fore, or at least some of them, whicli 
 are the subject of this monopoly, New 
 
 York has no jurisdictira whatever. 
 They are a part of the high seas, and 
 not within the body of any county. 
 The autliorities of that State could not 
 punish for a murder, committed on 
 board one of these boats, in some places 
 within the range of this exclusive grant. 
 This restraining of the States from all 
 jurisdiction out of the boly of their owu 
 counties, shows plainly enough that 
 navigation on the high seas was under- 
 stood to be a matter to be regulated 
 only by Congress. It is not unreason- 
 able to SaV, that what are called the 
 waters of New York are, for purposes 
 of navigation and commercial regula- 
 tion, the waters of the United States. 
 There is no cession, indeed, of the 
 waters themselves, but their use for 
 those purposes seems to be intrusted to 
 the exclusive power of Congress. Sev- 
 eral States have enacted laws which 
 would appear to imply their conviction 
 of the power of Congress over navigable 
 waters to a greater extent. 
 
 If there be a concurrent power of 
 regulating commerce on the high seas, 
 there must be a concurrent admiralty 
 jurisdiction, and a concurrent control of 
 the waters. It is a common principle, 
 that arms of the sea, including naviga- 
 ble rivers, belong to the sovereign, so 
 far as navigation is concerned. Their 
 use is navigation. The United States 
 possess the general power over naviga- 
 tion, and, of course, ought to control, in 
 general, the use of navigable waters. If 
 it be admitted that, for purposes of trade 
 and navigation, the North River and its 
 bay are the river and bay of New York, 
 and the Chesapeake the bay of ^'ir- 
 ginia, very great inconveniences and 
 much confusion might be the result. 
 
 It may now be well to take a nearer 
 view of these laws, to .see more exactly 
 what their provisions are, what conse- 
 quences have followed from them, and 
 what would and might follow from other 
 similar laws. 
 
 The first grant to John Fitch gave 
 him tlie sole and exclusive right of 
 making, employing, and navigating all 
 boats impelled by fire or steam, " in all 
 creeks, rivers, bays, and waters within 
 
THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 119 
 
 the territory and jurisdiction of the 
 State." Any other person navigating 
 such boat was to forfeit it, and to pay 
 a penalty of a hundred pounds. The 
 subsequent acts repeal this, and grant 
 similar privileo;es to Livingston and 
 Fulton; and the act of 1811 provides 
 the extraordinary and summary remedy 
 which has been already stated. The 
 river, the bay, and tlie marine league 
 along the snore, are all within the scope 
 of this grant. Any vessel, therefore, of 
 this description, coming into any of 
 those waters, without a license, whether 
 from another State or from abroad, 
 whether it be a public or private vessel, 
 is instantly forfeited to the grantees of 
 " the monopoly. 
 
 Now it must be remembered that this 
 grant is made as an exercise of sov- 
 sreigu political power. It is not an in- 
 spection law, nor a health law, nor 
 passed by any derivative authority ; it is 
 professedly an act of sovereign power. 
 Of course, there is no limit to the 
 power, to be derived from the purpose 
 for which it is exercised. If exercised 
 for one purpose, it may be also for an- 
 other. No one can inquire into the 
 motives which influence sovereign au- 
 thority. It is enough that such power 
 manifests its will. The motive alleged 
 in this case is, to remunerate the gran- 
 tees for a benefit conferred by them on 
 the public. But there is no necessary 
 connection between that benefit and 
 this mode of rewarding it; and if the 
 State could gi'ant this monopoly for 
 that purpose, it could also grant it for 
 any other piu-pose. It could make the 
 gi'ant for money; and so make the mo- 
 ■aopoly of navigation over those waters 
 a direct source of revenue. TMien this 
 monopoly shall expire, in 1838, the 
 State may continue it, for any pecuni- 
 ary consideration which the holders 
 may see fit to offer, and the State to 
 receive. 
 
 If the State may grant this monopoly, 
 it may also gi'ant another, for other 
 descriptions of vessels; for instance, for 
 aU sloops. 
 
 If it can grant these exclusive privi- 
 leges to a few, it may gi'ant them to 
 
 many; that is, it may grant them to all 
 its own citizens, to the exclusion of 
 everybody else. 
 
 But the waters of New York are no 
 more the subject of exclusive grants by 
 that State, than the waters of other 
 States are subjects of such grants by 
 those other States. Virginia may well 
 exercise, over the entrance of the Ches- 
 apeake, all the power that New York 
 can exercise over the bay of New York, 
 and the waters on her shores. The 
 Chesapeake, therefore, upon the prin- 
 ciple of these laws, may be the subject 
 of State monopoly ; and so may the bay 
 of Massachusetts. But this is not all. 
 It requires no greater power to grant a 
 monopoly of trade, than a monopoly of 
 navigation. Of course. New York, if 
 these acts can be maintained, may give 
 an exclusive riglit of entiy of vessels 
 into her ports; and the other States 
 may do the same. These are not ex- 
 treme cases. We have only to suppose 
 that other States should do what New 
 York has already done, and that the 
 power should be carried to its full 
 extent. 
 
 To aU this, no answer is to be given 
 but one, that the concurrent jiower of 
 the States, conciurent though it be, is 
 yet subordinate to the legislation of 
 Congi-ess; and that therefore Congress 
 may, whenever it pleases, annul the 
 State legislation; but until it does so 
 annul it, the State legislation is valid 
 and effectual. What is there to recom- 
 mend a construction which leads to a 
 result like this? Here would be a per- 
 petual hostility; one legislature enacts 
 ing laws, till another legislatui'e should 
 repeal them; one sovereign power giv- 
 ing the rule, till another sovereign 
 power should abrogate it; and all this 
 under the idea of concurrent legislation I 
 
 But, further, under this concurrent 
 power, the State does that which Con- 
 gress cannot do; that is, it gives prefer- 
 ences to the citizens of some States over 
 those of others. I do not mean here 
 the advantages conferred by the grant 
 on the grantees; but the disadvantages 
 to which it subjects all the other citi- 
 zens of New York. To impose an ex- 
 
120 
 
 THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 traordinary tax on steam navigation 
 visiting the ports of Xew York, and 
 leaving it free everj'M'here else, is giv- 
 ing a preference to the citizens of other 
 States over those of New York. This 
 Congi'ess could not do; and yet the 
 State does it; so that this power, at 
 first subordinate, then concurrent, now 
 becomes paramount. 
 
 The people of Xew York have a right 
 to be protected against this monopoly. 
 It is one of the objects for which tliey 
 agreed to this Constitution, that they 
 should stand on an equality in commer- 
 cial regulations ; and if the government 
 should not insure them that, the prom- 
 ises made to them in its behalf would 
 not be performed. 
 
 I contend, therefore, in conclusion on 
 this point, that the power of Congress 
 over these high branches of commercial 
 regulation is shown to be exclusive, by 
 considering what was wished and in- 
 tended to be done, when the convention 
 for forming the Constitution was called ; 
 by what was understood, in the State 
 conventions, to have been accomplished 
 by the instrument; by the prohibitions 
 on the States, and the express excep- 
 tion relative to inspection laws ; by the 
 nature of the power itself ; by the terms 
 used, as connected with the nature of 
 the power; by the subsequent under- 
 standing and practice, both of Congress 
 and the States; by the grant of ex- 
 clusive admiralty jurisdiction to the 
 federal government; by the manifest 
 danger of the opposite doctrine, and the 
 ruinous consequences to which it di- 
 rectly leads. 
 
 Little is now required to be said, to 
 prove that this exclusive grant is a law 
 regulating commerce ; although, in some 
 of the discussions elsewhere, it has been 
 called a law of police. If it be not a 
 regulation of commerce, then it follows, 
 against the constant admission on the 
 otiier side, that Congress, even by an 
 express act, cannot annul or control it. 
 For if it 1)3 not a regulation of com- 
 merce. Congress has no concern with it. 
 But the granting of monopolies of this 
 kind is always referred to the power over 
 commerce It was aa arbiter of com- 
 
 merce that the king formerly granted 
 such monopolies.^ This is a law regii- 
 lating commerce, inasmuch as :* imposea 
 new conditions and terms on the coast- 
 ing trade, on foreign trade generally, 
 and on foreign trade as regulated by 
 treaties; and inasmuch as it interferes 
 with the free navigation of navigable 
 waters. 
 
 If, then, the power of commercial reg- 
 ulation possessed by Congress be, in 
 regard to the gi-eat branches of it, ex- 
 clusive ; and if this grant of Xew York 
 be a commercial regulation, affecting 
 commerce in respect to these great 
 branches, then the grant is void, whether 
 any case of actual collision has hapi>eued 
 or not. 
 
 But I contend, in the second place, 
 that whether the grant were to be re- 
 garded as wholly void or not, it must, at 
 least, be inoj>erative, when the rights 
 claimed under it come in collision with 
 other rights, enjoyed and secured under 
 the laws of the United States ; and such 
 collision, I maintain, clearly exists in 
 this case. It will not be denied that the 
 law of Congi-ess is paramount. The 
 Constitution has expressly provided for 
 that. So that the only question in this 
 part of the case is, whether the two 
 rights be inconsistent with each other. 
 The appellant has a right to go from 
 Xew Jersey to Xew York, in a vessel 
 o\med by himself, of the proper legal 
 description, and enrolled and licensed 
 according to law. This right belongs 
 to him as a citizen of the United States. 
 It is derived under the laws of the 
 United States, and no act of the legis- 
 lature of Xew York can deprive him of 
 it, any more than such act could deprive 
 him of the right of holding lands in that 
 State, or of suing in its covu'ts. It ap- 
 pears from the record, that the boat in 
 question was regularly enrolled at Perth 
 Amboy, and properly licensed for carry- 
 ing on the coasting trade. Under this 
 enrolment, and with tliis license, she was 
 proceeding to Xew York, when she was 
 stopped by the injunction of the Chan- 
 
 1 1 Black. Com. 273; 4 Blaik. Com. 160. 
 
THE CASE OF GTRBOXS AND OGDEN. 
 
 121 
 
 cellor, on the application of the New 
 York orantees. Ihere can be no doubt 
 that liere is a collision, in fact; that 
 which the appellant claimed as a right, 
 the respondent resisted; and there re- 
 mains nothing now but to determine 
 whether the appellant had, as he con- 
 tends, a right to navigate these waters; 
 because, if he had such right, it must 
 prevail. 
 
 Now, this right is expressly conferred 
 by the laws of the United States. The 
 first section of the act of February, 
 1703, ch 8, regulating the coasting trade 
 and fisheries, declares, that all ships and 
 vessels, enrolled and licensed as that 
 act provides, "and no others, shall be 
 deemed ships or vessels of the United 
 States, entitled to the privileges of ships 
 or vessels employed in the coasting trade 
 or fisheries." The fourth section of the 
 same act declares, "that, in order to the 
 licensing of any ship or vessel, for car- 
 rying on the coasting trade or fisheries," 
 bond shall be given, according to the 
 provisions of the act. And the same 
 section declares, that, the owner having 
 complied with the requisites of the law, 
 " it shall be the duty of the collector to 
 gi-ant a license for carrjdng on the coast- 
 ing trade " ; and the act proceeds to give 
 the form and words of the license, which 
 is, therefore, of course, to be received as 
 a part of the act; and the words of the 
 license, after the necessary recitals, are, 
 " License is hereby granted for the said 
 vessel to be employed in carrying on the 
 coasting trade. ' ' Words could not make 
 this authority more express. 
 
 The court below seems to me, with 
 great deference, to have mistaken the 
 object and nature of the license. It 
 seoms to have been of opinion, that the 
 license has no other intent or effect than 
 to ascertain the ownership and character 
 of the A'essel. But this is the peculiar 
 office and object of the enrolment. That 
 dociunent ascertains that the regidar 
 proof of ownership and character has 
 been given; and the license is given to 
 confer the right to which the party has 
 shown himself entitled. It is the au- 
 thority which the master carries with 
 him, to prove his right to navigate freely 
 
 the waters of the United States, and to 
 carry on the coasting trade. 
 
 In some of the discussions which have 
 been had on this question, it has been 
 said, that Congress has only provided for 
 ascertaining the ownership and property 
 of vessels, but has not prescribed to 
 what use they may be applied. But this 
 is an obvious error. The whole object 
 of the act regulating the coasting trade 
 is to declare wiuit vessels sliall enjoy the 
 benefit of being employed in that trade. 
 To secure this use to certain vessels, and 
 to deny it to others, is precisely the pur- 
 pose for which the act was passed. The 
 error, or what I humbly suppose to be 
 the error, in the judgment of the court 
 below, consists in that court's having 
 thought, that, although Congress might 
 act, it had not yet acted, in such a way 
 as to confer a right on the appellant; 
 whereas, if a right was not given by this 
 law, it never could be given. No law 
 can be more express. It has been ad- 
 mitted, that, supposing there is a pro- 
 vision in the act of Congress, that all 
 vessels duly licensed shall be at liberty 
 to navigate, for the purpose of trade and 
 commerce, all the navigable harbors, 
 bays, rivers, and lakes within the sev- 
 eral States, any law of the States creat- 
 ing particular privileges as to any par- 
 ticular class of vessels to the contrary 
 notwithstanding, the only question that 
 could arise, in such a case, would be, 
 whether the law was constitutional; and 
 that, if that was to be granted or de- 
 cided, it would certainly, in all courts 
 and places, overrule and set afide the 
 State grant. 
 
 Now, I do not see that such supposed 
 case could be distinguished from the 
 present. We show a provision in an act 
 of Congress, that all vessels, duly li- 
 censed, may carry on the coasting trade; 
 nobody doubts the constitutional valid- 
 ity of that law; and we show that this 
 vessel was duly licensed according to its 
 provisions. This is all that is essential 
 in the case supposed. The presence or 
 absence of a non obstante clause cannot 
 affect the extent or operation of the act 
 of Congress. Congress has no power of 
 revoking State laws, as a dielinct power 
 
122 
 
 THE CASE OF GIBBONS AND OGDEN. 
 
 It legislates over subjects; and over those 
 subjects which are \Yithin its power, its 
 legislation is supreme, and necessarily 
 overrules all inconsistent or repugnant 
 State legislation. If Congress were to 
 pass an act expressly revoking or annul- 
 ling, in whole or in part, this New York 
 grant, such an act would be wholly use- 
 less and inoperative. If the New York 
 grant be opposed to, or inconsistent with, 
 any constitutional power which Congress 
 has exercised, then, so far as the incom- 
 patibility exists, the grant is nugatory 
 and void, necessarily, and by reason of 
 the supremacy of the law of Congress. 
 But if the grant be not inconsistent with 
 any exercise of the powers of Congress, 
 then, certainly, Congress has no author- 
 ity to revoke or annul it. Such an act 
 of Congress, therefore, would be either 
 unconstitutional or supererogatory. The 
 laws of Congress need no non obstante 
 clause. The Constitution makes them 
 Bupreme, when State laws come into 
 opposition to them. So that in these 
 cases there is no question except this; 
 whether there be, or be not, a repug- 
 nancy or hostility between the law of 
 Congress and the law of the State. Nor 
 is it at all material, in this view, whether 
 the law of the State be a law regulating 
 con)merce, or a law of police, nor by 
 what other name or character it may be 
 designated. If its provisions be incon- 
 sistent with an act of Congress, they 
 are void, so far as that inconsistency ex- 
 tends. The whole argument, therefore, 
 is substantially and effectually given up, 
 when it is admitted that Congress might, 
 by express terms, abrogate the State 
 grant, or declare that it should not stand 
 m the way of its own legislation; be- 
 cause such express terms would add noth- 
 ing to the effect and operation of an act 
 of Congress. 
 
 I contend, therefore, upon tlie whole 
 of this point, that a case of actual col- 
 lision has been made out between the 
 State grant and the act of Congress; 
 and as the act of Congress is entirely 
 unexceptionable, and cleai'ly in pursu- 
 ance of its coiistilutional powers, the 
 State grant iruist yield. 
 
 There are other provisions of the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, which 
 have more or less bearing on this ques- 
 tion. " No State shall, without the 
 consent of Congress, lay any duty of 
 tonnage." Under color of grants like 
 this, that prohibition might be wholly 
 evaded. This grant authorizes Messre. 
 Livingston and Fulton to license naviga- 
 tion in the waters of New York. They, 
 of course, license it on their own terms. 
 They may require a pecuniary consider- 
 ation, ascertained by the tonnage of the 
 vessel, or in any other manner. Prob- 
 ably, in fact, they govern themselves, in 
 this respect, by the size or tonnage of the 
 vessels to which they grant licenses. 
 Now, what is this but substantially a 
 tonnage duty, under the law of the 
 State? Or does it make any differ- 
 ence, whether the receipts go directly 
 into her own treasury, or into the hands 
 of those to whom she has made the 
 grant? 
 
 There is, lastly, that provision of the 
 Constitution which gives Congress power 
 to promote the progress of science and 
 the useful arts, by securing to authors 
 and inventors, for a limited time, an ex- 
 clusive riglit to their own writings and 
 discoveries. Congress has exercised this 
 power, and made all the provisions 
 which it deemed useful or necessary. 
 The States may, indeed, like munificent 
 individuals, exercise their own bounty 
 towards authors and inventors, at their 
 own discretion. But to confer reward 
 by exclusive grants, even if it were but 
 a part of the use of the writing or inven- 
 tion, is not supposed to be a jwwer 
 properly to be exercised by the States. 
 ^luch less can they, under the notion of 
 conferring rewards in such cases, grant 
 monopolies, the enjoyment of which is 
 essentially incompatible with the exer- 
 cise of rights possessed under the laws 
 of the United States. I shall insist, 
 however, the less on these points, as they 
 are open to counsel who will come after 
 me on the same side, and as I have said 
 so much upon what appears to me the 
 more important and interesting part of 
 the argument. 
 
THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 AN ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE LAYING OF THE CORNER-STONE OF THE 
 BUNKER HILL MONUMENT AT CIIARLESTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS, ON THR 
 17th OF JUNE, 1825. 
 
 [As early as 1776, some steps were taken 
 toward the comincmoration of the battle of 
 Bunker Hill and the fall of General War- 
 ren, who was buried upon the hill the day 
 after the action. The Massachusetts Lodge 
 of Masons, over which he presided, applied 
 to the provisional government of Massachu- 
 setts, for permission to take up his remains 
 and to bury them with the usual solcnnii- 
 ties. The Council granted this request, on 
 condition that it sliould be carried into ef- 
 fect in such a manner that the government 
 of the Colony might have an op])ortunity to 
 erect a monument to his memory. A funeral 
 procession was liad, and a Eulogy on Gen- 
 eral Warren was delivered by Perez Morton, 
 but no measures were taken toward build- 
 ing a monument. 
 
 A resolution was adopted by the Congress 
 of the United States on the 8tli of April, 
 1777, directing that monuments should be 
 erected to the memory of General Warren, 
 in Boston, and of General Mercer, at Fred- 
 ericksburg; but this resolution has remained 
 to the present time unexecuted. 
 
 On the 11th of November, 1704, a com- 
 mittee was appointed by King Solomon's 
 Lodge, at Charlestown,^ to take measures 
 for the erection of a monument to the mem- 
 ory of General Joseph Warren at the ex- 
 pense of the Lodge. This resolution was 
 promptly carried into effect, 'llie land for 
 this ]nirpose was presented to the Lodge by 
 the Hon. James Russell, of Charlestown, 
 and it was dedicated with appropriate cer- 
 emonies on the 2d of December, 170-1. It 
 was a wooden pillar of the Tuscan order, 
 eighteen feet in height, raised on a pedestal 
 eight feet square, and of an elevation of ten 
 feet from the ground. Tiie pillar was sur- 
 mounted by a gilt urn. An appropriate in- 
 scription was placed on the south side of the 
 pedestal. 
 
 In February, 1818, a committee of the 
 
 1 General Warren, at the time of his decease, 
 was Grand Master of the Masonic Lodges in 
 America. 
 
 legislature of Massachusetts was appomt- 
 ed to consider the expediency of building a 
 monument of American marble of the mem- 
 ory of General Wurren, but this projiosal 
 was not carried into effect. 
 
 As the half-century from the date of the 
 battle drew toward a close, a stronger feel- 
 ing of the duty of commemorating it liegan 
 to be awakened in the comnnmity. Among 
 those wlio from the first manifested the 
 greatest interest in the subject, was the 
 late William Tudor, Esq. He expressed 
 the wish, in a letter still preserved, to see 
 upon the battle-groimd " the noblest monu- 
 ment in the world," and he was so ardent 
 and persevering in urging the project, that 
 it has been stated that he first conceived 
 the idea of it. The steps taken in execu- 
 tion of the project, from the earliest private 
 conferences among the gentlemen first en- 
 gaged in it to its final completion, are accu- 
 rately sketched by Mr. Richard Frothing- 
 ham, Jr., in his valuable History of the 
 Siege of Boston. All the material facts 
 contained in this note are derived from his 
 chapter on the Bunker Hill Monument. 
 After giving an account of the organiza- 
 tion of the society, the measures adopted 
 for the collection of funds, and the delib- 
 erations on the form of the monument, Mr. 
 Frothingham proceeds as follows : — 
 
 " It was at this stage of the enterprise that 
 the directors proposed to lay the corner-stone of 
 the monument, and ground was liroken (.lune 
 7th) for tills puriiosc. As a mark of rcsiu-ot to 
 the liberality and patriotism of Kinir Solomon's 
 Lodge, they invited the Grand Master of the 
 Grand Lodge of Massachusetts to perform the 
 ceremony. They also invited General Lafayette 
 to accompany the President of the Association, 
 Hon. Daniel Webster, and assist in it. 
 
 "This celebration was unequalled in majrnifi- 
 cence by any thing of the kind that had been 
 seen in New England. The morning proved 
 propitious. The air was cool, the sky was 
 clear, and timely showers the previous day had 
 brightened the vesture of nature into its love- 
 liest hue. Delighted thousands flocked into 
 
124 
 
 THE BUNKER IinX MON'OIENT. 
 
 Boston to bear a part in the proceedinfrf. or to 
 witness the spectacle. At about ten o'clock a 
 procession moved from the State House towards 
 Bunker Hill. The military, in their fine uni- 
 forms, formed the van. About two hundred 
 veterans of the Revolution, of whom forty were 
 « irvivors of the battle, rode in barouches next to 
 *.he escort. These venerable men, the relics of 
 a past generation, with emaciated frames, tot- 
 terin;,' limbs, and trembling voices, constituted 
 a touching spectacle. Some wore, as honorable 
 decorations, their old fighting equipments, and 
 loine bore the scars of still more honorable 
 wounds. Glistening eyes constituted their an- 
 swer to the enthusiastic cheers of the grateful 
 multitr.des who lined their pathway and cheered 
 their progress. To this patriot band succeeded 
 the Bimker Hill Monument Association. Then 
 the Masonic fraternity, in their splendid regalia, 
 thousands in number. Then I.afayette, con- 
 tinually welcomed by tokens of love and grati- 
 tude, and the invitee! guest*. Then a long array 
 of societies, with their various badges and ban- 
 ners. It was a splendid procession, and of such 
 length that the front nearly reached Charles- 
 tow-n Bridge ere the rear had left Boston Com- 
 mon. It proceeded to Breed's Hill, where the 
 Grand Master of the Freemasons, the President 
 of the Monument .Association, and General La- 
 fayette, performed the ceremonj' of laying the 
 comer-stone, in the presence of a vast concourse 
 of people." 
 
 The procession then moved to a spacious 
 amphitheatre on the northern declivity of 
 the hill, when the following address was de- 
 livered by Mr. Webster, in the presence of 
 as great a mnltitiide as was ever perhaps 
 assembled within the sound of a human 
 voice.] 
 
 This uncounted multitude before me 
 and around me proves the feeling which 
 the occa.sion has excited. These thou- 
 sands of human faces, glowing -with sym- 
 pathy and joy, and from the impulses of 
 a common cn-atitude turned reverently to 
 heaven in this spacious temple of the 
 firmament, proclaim tliat the day, the 
 place, and the purpose of oiu" assembling- 
 have made a deep impression on our 
 hearts. 
 
 If, indeed, there be anything in local 
 association fit to affect tlie mind of man, 
 we need not strive to repress the emo- 
 tions which agitate iis here. We are 
 among the sepulchres of our fathers. 
 "We are on ground, distinguished by 
 tlieir valor, their constancy, and the 
 plicdding of their blood. We are here, 
 not to fix an uncertain date in our an- 
 nals, nor to draw into notice an obscure 
 and unknown spot. If our humble pur- 
 poi'e had never been conceived, if we 
 ourselves hud never been born, the 17th 
 
 of .Time, 1775, would have Cteen a day 
 on which all sub.sequent hi.«ton' would 
 have poured its light, and the eminence 
 where we stand a point of attraction to 
 the eyes of successive generations. But 
 we are Americans. We live in what 
 may be called the early age of this great 
 continent; and we know that our pos- 
 terity, through all time, are here to en- 
 joy and suffer the allotments of human- 
 ity. We see before us a probable train 
 of gi'eat events ; we know that our own 
 fortunes have been happily cast : and it 
 is natural, therefore, that we should be 
 moved by the contemplation of occur- 
 rences which have guided our destiny 
 before many of us were born, and set- 
 tled the condition in which we should 
 pass that portion of our exi.stence which 
 God allows to men on earth. 
 
 We do not read even of the discovery 
 of this continent, without feeling some- 
 thing of a personal interest in the event; 
 without being reminded how much it 
 has affected our own fortunes and our 
 own existence. It would be still more 
 unnatural for us, therefore, than for 
 others, to contemplate with unaffected 
 minds that interesting, I may say that 
 most touching and pathetic scene, when 
 the great discoverer of America stood on 
 the deck of his shattered bark, the shades 
 of night falling on the sea, yet no man 
 sleeping ; tossed on the billows of an 
 unknown ocean, yet the stronger bil- 
 lows of alternate hope and despair toss- 
 ing his own troubled thoughts ; extend- 
 ing forward his harassed frame, straining 
 westward his anxious and eager eyes, till 
 Heaven at last granted him a moment of 
 rapture and ecsta.sy, in blessing his vision 
 with the sight of the u^lkno■^\^l world. 
 
 Nearer to our times, more closely con- 
 nected with om- fates, and therefore still 
 more interesting to om- feelings and af- 
 fections, is the settlement of our oaati 
 country by colonists from England. We 
 cherish every memorial of these worthy 
 ancestors ; we celebrate their i^atience 
 and fortitude; we admire their daring 
 entei-prise ; we teach our children to 
 venerate their piety; and we are justly 
 proud of being descended from men who 
 have set the world an example of found- 
 
THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 125 
 
 big civil institutions on the great and 
 united principles of human freedom and 
 human knowledge. To us, their chil- 
 dren, the story of their labors and suf- 
 terintjs can never be without its interest. 
 / We shall not stand unmoved on the shore 
 of Plymouth, while the sea contuuies to 
 wash it ; nor will our brethren in another 
 early and ancient Colony forget the place 
 of its first establishment, till their river 
 shall cease to flow by it.i Xo vigor of 
 youth, no maturity of manhood, will 
 lead the nation to forget the spots where 
 its infancy was cradled and defended. 
 
 But the great event m the history of 
 the continent, which we are now met 
 here to commemorate, that prodigy of 
 modern tmies, at once the wonder and 
 the blessing of the world, is the Ameri- 
 can Revolution. In a day of extraordi- 
 nary prosperity and happiness, of high 
 national honor, distinction, and power, 
 we are brought together, m this place, 
 by our love of country, by om- admira- 
 tion of exalted character, by om- grati- 
 tude for signal services and patriotic 
 devotion. 
 
 The Society whose organ I am ^ was 
 formed for the purpose of rearing some 
 honorable and durable monument to the 
 memory of the early friends of Ameri- 
 can Independence. They have thought, 
 that for this object no time could be 
 more propitious than the present pros- 
 perous and peaceful period ; that no 
 place could claim preference over this 
 memorable spot; and that no day could 
 be more auspicious to the undertaking, 
 
 1 An interesting account of the voj-age of 
 the early emigrants to the Maryland Colony, 
 and of its settlement, is given in the official re- 
 port of Father White, written probably within 
 the first month after the landing at St. Mar_v's. 
 The original Latin manuscript is still preserved 
 among the archives of the Jesuits at Rome. 
 The '" Ark " and the " Dove " are remembered 
 with scarcely less interest by the descendants 
 of tlie sister colony, than is the "Mayflower" 
 iu New England, which thirteen years earlier, 
 at the same season of the year, bore thither the 
 Pilgrim Fathers. 
 
 ■•^ Mr. Webster was at this time President of 
 the Bunker Hill Monument Association, chosen 
 on the decease of Governor John Brooks, the 
 first President. 
 
 than the anniversary ot the battle which 
 was here fought. The foundation of 
 that monument we have now laid. 
 With solemnities suited to the occa- 
 sion, with prayers to Almighty God for 
 his blessing, and in the midst of tliia 
 cloud of witnesses, we have begun the 
 work. AVe trust it will be prosecuted, 
 and that, springing from a broad foun- 
 dation, rising high in massive solidity 
 and unadorned grandeur, it may reraaia 
 as long as Heaven permits the works of 
 man to last, a fit emblem, both of the 
 events in memory of which it is raised, 
 and of the gratitude of those who have 
 reared it. 
 
 We know, indeed, that the record of 
 illustrious actions is most safely depos- 
 ited in the imiversal remembrance of 
 mankind. We know, that if we could 
 cause this structure to ascend, not only 
 till it reached the skies, but till it 
 pierced them, its broad surfaces could 
 still contain but part of that which, in 
 an age of knowledge, hath already been 
 spread over the earth, and which history 
 charges itself with making known to all 
 future times. We know that no inscrip- 
 tion on entablatures less broad than the 
 earth itself can carry information of the 
 events we commemorate where it has 
 not aheady gone ; and that no structure, 
 which shall not outlive the duration of 
 letters and knowledge among men, can 
 prolong the memorial. But our object 
 is, by this edifice, to show our own deep 
 sense of the value and importance of the 
 achievements of our ancestors; and, by 
 presenting this work of gratitude to the 
 ej'e, to keep alive similar sentiments, 
 and to foster a constant regard for the 
 principles of the Revolution. Human 
 beings are composed, not of reason only, I 
 but of imagination also, and sentiment; i 
 and that is neither wasted nor misap- 
 plied which is appropriated to the pur- 
 pose of giving right direction to senti- 
 ments, and opening proper springs of 
 feeling in the heart. Let it not be sup- 
 posed that our object is to perpetuate 
 national hostility, or even to cherish 
 a mere military spirit. It is higher, 
 purer, nobler. We consecrate our work 
 to the spirit of national independence^ 
 
120 
 
 THE BUNKER HILL MON'UMENT. 
 
 and we wish that the light of peace may 
 rest upon it for ever. We rear a memo- 
 rial of our conviction of that unmeas- 
 ured benefit which has been conferred 
 on our own land, and of the happy in- 
 fluences which have been produced, by 
 the same events, on the general interests 
 of mankind. We come, as Americans, 
 to mark a .spot which must for ever be 
 ds;ar to us and our posterity. We wish 
 that whosoever, in all coming time, shall 
 tui u his eye hither, may behold that the 
 place is not undistinguished where the 
 first great battle of the Revolution was 
 fought. We \\ ish that this structure may 
 proclaim the magnitude and importance 
 of that event to every class and every 
 age. \Ye wish that infancy maj'^ learn 
 the purpose of its erection from mater- 
 nal lips, and that weary and withered 
 age may behold it, and be solaced by 
 the recollections which it suggests. We 
 wish that labor may look up here, and 
 be proud, in the midst of its toil. We 
 wish that, in those days of disaster, 
 which, as they come upon all nations, 
 must be expected to come upon us also, 
 desponding patriotism may turn its eyes 
 hitherward, and be assured that the 
 foundations of our national power are 
 still strong. We wish that this column, 
 rising towards heaven among the pointed 
 spires of so many temples dedicated to 
 God, may contribute also to produce, in 
 all minds, a pious feeling of dependence 
 and gratitude. We wish, finally, that 
 the last object to the sight of him who 
 leaves his native shore, and the first to 
 gladden his who revisits it, may be 
 something which shall remind him of 
 tlie liberty and the glory of his country. 
 Let it rise! let it rise, till it meet the 
 6uu in his coming; let the earliest light 
 of the morning gild it, and parting day 
 linger and play on its sununit. 
 
 We live in a most extraordinary age. 
 Events so various and so important that 
 they miglit crowd and distinguish cen- 
 turies are, in our times, compressed 
 within the corapa.ss of a single life. 
 AVhen has it liappened tliat history has 
 had so much to record, in the same term 
 of years, as since the ITlh of June, 1775? 
 
 Our own Revolution, which, under other 
 cu'cumstances, might itself have been 
 exjiected to occasion a war of half a cen- 
 tury, has been achieved; twenty-four 
 sovereign and independent States erect- 
 ed; and a general government estab- 
 lished over them, so safe, so wise, so free, 
 so practical, that we might well wonder 
 its establishment should have been ac- 
 complished so soon, were it not far the 
 greater wonder that it should have been 
 established at all. ' Two or three mil-~ 
 lions of people have been augmented to 
 twelve, the great forests of the West 
 prostrated beneath the arm of success- 
 ful industry, and the dwellers on the 
 banks of the Ohio and the Mississippi be- 
 come the fellow-citizens and neighbors 
 of those who cultivate the hills of New 
 England. 1 We have a commerce, that 
 leaves no sea unexplored; navies, which 
 take no law from sujierior force; reve- 
 nues, adequate to all the exigencies of 
 government, almost without taxation; 
 and peace with all nations, founded on 
 equal rights and mutual respect. 
 
 Europe, within the same period, has 
 been agitated by a mighty revolution, 
 which, wiiile it has been felt in the in- 
 dividual condition and happiness of al- 
 most every man, has shaken to the cen- 
 tre her political fabric, and da^^hed 
 against one another thrones which had 
 stood tranquil for ages. On this, our 
 continent, our own example has beeu 
 followed, and colonies have sprung up 
 to be nations. Unaccustomed sounds 
 of liberty and free government have 
 reached us from beyond the track of the 
 sun; and at this moment the dominion 
 of European power in this continent, 
 from the place where we stand to the 
 south pole, is annihilated for ever. 
 
 In the mean time, both in Europe and 
 
 1 That wliich was spoken of figuratively in 
 182.") lias, ill the lapse of a quarter of a century, 
 by the iiitroihiction of railroads anil telegraphic 
 lines, become a reality. It is an interesting 
 circumstance, that the lirst railroad on tiio 
 Western Continent was constructed for the pur- 
 pose of acceleraiing the erection of this nionu- 
 uient. 
 
 2 See President Monroe's Message to Con- 
 gress in 1S2-'1, aiul Mr. \Vebster'8 speech ou ihf 
 I'anama Mi>^ion, in 182G. 
 
THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 127 
 
 America, such has been the general piog- 
 ress of knowledge, such the improve- 
 ment in legislation, in connnerce, in tlie 
 arts, in letters, and, above all, in liberal 
 ideas and the general spirit of the age, 
 that the whole world seems changed. 
 
 Yet, notwithstanding that this is but 
 a faint abstract of the things which 
 have happened since the day of the bat- 
 tle of Bunker Hill, we are but fifty 
 years removed from it; and we now 
 stand here to enjoy all the blessings of 
 our own condition, and to look abroad 
 on the brightened prospects of the world, 
 while we still have among us some of 
 those w^ho were active agents in the 
 scenes of 1775, and who are now here, 
 from every quarter of New England, to 
 visit once more, and under circum- 
 stances so affecting, I had almost said 
 so overwhelming, this renowned theatre 
 of their courage and patriotism. 
 
 Veneuable mex 1 you have come 
 down to us from a former generation. 
 Heaven has bounteously lengthened out 
 your lives, that you might behold this 
 joyous day. You are now where you 
 stood fifty years ago, this very hour, 
 with your brothers and your neighbors, 
 shoulder to shoulder, in the strife for 
 your country. Behold, how altered 1 
 The same heavens are indeed over your 
 heads ; the same ocean rolls at your feet ; 
 but all else how changed ! You hear 
 now no roar of hostile cannon, you see 
 no mixed volumes of smoke and flame 
 risinsT from burning Charlestown. The 
 ground strewed with the dead and the 
 dying; the impetuous charge; the steady 
 and successful repulse; the loud call to 
 repeated assault; the summoning of all 
 that is manly to repeated resistance ; a 
 thousand bosoms freely and fearlessly 
 bared in an instant to whatever of terror 
 there may be in war and death ; — all 
 these you have witnessed, but you wit- 
 ness them no more. All is peace. The 
 heights of yonder metropolis, its tcrwers 
 and roofs, which you then saw filled 
 with wives and children and country- 
 men in distress and terror, and looking 
 with unutterable emotions tor the issue 
 of the combat, have presented you to- 
 
 day with the sight of its whole happy 
 population, come out to welcome and 
 greet you with a universal jubilee. 
 Yonder proud ships, by a felicity of 
 position appropriately lying at the foot 
 of this mount, and seeming fondly to 
 cling around it, are not means of annoy- 
 ance to you, but your country's own 
 means of distinction and defence.* All 
 is peace; and God has granted you this 
 sight of your country's happiness, ere 
 you slumber in the grave. He has al- 
 lowed you to behold and to partake the 
 reward of your patriotic toils; and he 
 has allowed us, your sons and country- 
 men, to meet you here, and in the name 
 of the present generation, in the name 
 of your country, in the name of liberty, 
 to thank you ! 
 
 But, alas! you are not all here! Time 
 and the sword have thinned yom- ranks. 
 Prescott, Putnam, Stark, Brooks, Read, 
 Pomeroy, Bridge ! our eyes seek for you 
 in vain amid this broken band. Y'ou 
 are gathered to your fathers, and live 
 only to your country in her gratefid re- 
 membrance and your owm bright ex- 
 ample. But let us not too much grieve, 
 that you have met the common fate of 
 men. Y^ou lived at least long enough 
 to know that your w^ork had been nobly 
 and successfully accomplished. Y'ou 
 lived to see your country's indepen- 
 dence established, and to sheathe your 
 swords from war. On the light of Lib- 
 erty you saw arise the light of Peace, 
 
 like 
 
 " another morn, 
 Risen on mid-noon " ; 
 
 and the sky on which you closed your 
 eyes was cloudless. 
 
 But ah ! Him ! the first great martyr in 
 this great cause! Him! the premature 
 victim of his own self-devoting heaill 
 Him! the head of our civil councils, 
 and the destined leader of our military 
 bands, whom nothing brought hither 
 but the unciuenchable fire of his own 
 spirit! Him! cut off by Providence in 
 
 1 It ia necessary to inform those only wlio 
 are unacquainted with the localities, tliat the 
 United States Navy Yard at Cliarlestown it 
 situated at the base of Bunker Hill. 
 
128 
 
 THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 the hour of ovenvhelming anxiety and 
 thick gloom ; falling ere he saw tlie star 
 of his country rise; pouring out his 
 generous blood like water, before he 
 knew whether it would fertilize a land 
 of freedom or of bondage 1 — how shall 
 I strufrorle with the emotions that stifle 
 the utterance of thy nanieli Our poor 
 work may perish; but thine shall en- 
 dure! This monument may moulder 
 away; the solid ground it rests upon 
 may sink down to a level with the sea ; 
 but thy memory shall not fail ! Where- 
 soever among men a heart shall be 
 found that beats to the transports of 
 patriotism and liberty, its aspirations 
 shall be to claim kiudi-ed with thy 
 spirit ! 
 
 But the scene amidst which we stand 
 does not permit us to confine our 
 thoughts or our sjonpathies to those 
 fearless spirits who hazarded or lost 
 their lives on this consecrated spot. 
 We have the happiness to rejoice here 
 in the presence of a most worthy repre- 
 sentation of the sm-vivors of the whole 
 Revolutionary army. 
 
 Veterans! you are the remnant of 
 many a well-fought field. You bring 
 with you marks of honor from Trenton 
 and Monmouth, from Yorktown, Cam- 
 den, Bennington, and Saratoga. Vet- 
 
 EKANS OF UALF A CENTUUY! wheu iu 
 
 your youthful days you put every thing 
 at hazard in your country's cause, good 
 as that cause was, and sanguine as 
 youth is, still your fondest hopes did 
 not stretch onward to an horn* like this ! 
 At a period to which you could not 
 reasonably have expected to arrive, at a 
 moment of national prosperity such as 
 you could never have foreseen, you are 
 now met here to enjoy the fellowship of 
 old soldiers, and to receive the over- 
 flowings of a universal gratitude. 
 
 But your agitated countenances and 
 your heaving breasts inform me that 
 even this is not an unmixed joy. I 
 perceive that a tumult of contending 
 feelings rushes upon you. The images 
 of the dead, as well as tlie persons of 
 the living, present themselves before 
 
 1 See the North American Review, Vol. 
 XLI. p. 242. 
 
 you. The scene ovemhehns you. aiK^ 
 I turn from it. May the Father of all 
 mercies .smile upon j'our declining years, 
 and bless them! And when you shall 
 here have exchanged your embraces, 
 when you shall once more have pressed 
 the hands which have been so often ex- 
 tended to give succor in adversity, or 
 grasped in the exultation of victory, 
 then look abroad upon this lovely land 
 which your young valor defended, and 
 mark the happiness with which it is 
 filled; yea, look abroad upon the whole 
 earth, and see what a name you have 
 contributed to give to your country, and 
 what a praise you have added to free- 
 dom, and then rejoice in the sympathy 
 and gratitude which beam upon your 
 last days from the improved condition 
 of mankind ! 
 
 The occasion does not require of me 
 any particular account of the battle of 
 the 17th of June, 1775, nor any de- 
 tailed narrative of the events which 
 immediately preceded it. These are 
 familiarly known to aU. In the prog- 
 ress of the great and interesting con- 
 troversy, Massachusetts and the tovm. 
 of Boston had become early and marked 
 objects of the displeasure of the British 
 Parliament. This had been manifested ' 
 in the act for altering the government 
 of the Province, and in that for shut- 
 ting up the port of Boston. Nothing 
 sheds more honor on our early historj;, 
 and nothing better shows how little the 
 feelings and sentiments of the Colonies 
 were known or regarded in England, 
 than the impression which these meas- 
 ures everyAvhere produced in America. 
 It had been anticipated, that, while the 
 Colonies in general would be terrified 
 by the severity of the punishment in- 
 flicted on ^lassachusetts, the other sea- 
 ports would be governed by a mere 
 spirit of gain; and that, as Boston w;is 
 now cut off from all commerce, tlie un- 
 expected advantage which this blow on 
 her was calculated to confer on other 
 towns woidd be greedily enjoyed. How 
 miserably such reasoners deceived them- 
 selves! IIow little they knew of the 
 depth, and the sti'ength, and the in- 
 
THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 129 
 
 tenseness of that feeling of resistance to 
 illegal acts of power, which possessed 
 the whole American people! Every- 
 where the unworthy boon was rejected 
 with scorn. The fortunate occasion 
 was seized, everywhere, to show to the 
 whole world that the Colonies were 
 swayed by no local interest, no partial 
 interest, no selfish interest. The temp- 
 tation to profit by the punishment of 
 Boston was strongest to our neighbors 
 of Salem. Yet Salem was precisely the 
 place where this miserable proffer was 
 spiu-ned, in a tone of the most lofty 
 Belf-respect and the most indignant 
 patriotism. " We are deeply affected," 
 said its inhabitants, "with the sense of 
 our public calamities; but the miseries 
 that are now rapidly hastening on our 
 brethren in the capital of the Province 
 greatly excite our commiseration. By 
 shutting up the port of Boston, some 
 imagine that the course of trade might 
 be tui'ned hither and to our benefit; but 
 we must be dead to every idea of justice, 
 lost to all feelings of humanity, could 
 we indulge a thought to seize on wealth 
 and raise our fortunes on the ruin of 
 our suffering neighbors." These noble 
 oentiments were not confined to our im- 
 mediate vicinity. In that day of gen- 
 eral affection and brotherhood, the blow 
 given to Boston smote on every patriotic 
 heart from one end of the country to 
 the other. Virginia and the Carolinas, 
 as well as Connecticut and New Hamp- 
 shire, felt and proclaimed the cause to 
 be their own. The Contineiital Con- 
 gress, then holding its first session in 
 Philadelphia, expressed its sjTupathy 
 for the suffering inhabitants of Boston, 
 and addresses were received from all 
 quarters, assuring them that the cause 
 was a common one, and should be met 
 by common efforts and common sacri- 
 fices. The Congress of ^Massachusetts 
 responded to these assurances; and in 
 an address to the Congress at Philadel- 
 phia, bearing the official signature, per- 
 haps among the last, of the immortal 
 "Warren, notwithstanding the severity 
 of its suffering and the magnitude of 
 the dangers which threatened it, it was 
 declared, that this Colony " is ready, at 
 
 all times, to spend and to be spent in 
 the cause of America." 
 
 But the hour drew nigh which was to 
 put professions to the proof, and to de- 
 termine whether the authors of these 
 mutual pledges were ready to seal them 
 in blood. The tidings of Lexington 
 and Concord had no sooner spread, than 
 it was universally felt that the time was 
 at last come for action. A spirit per- 
 vaded all ranks, not transient, not bois- 
 terous, but deep, solemn, determined, 
 
 "totamque infu.sa per artus 
 Mens agitat niolem, et magno se corpore miscet." 
 
 War, on their own soil and at their own 
 doors, was, indeed, a strange work to 
 the yeomanry of New England; but 
 their consciences were convinced of its 
 necessity, their country called them to 
 it, and they did not withhold themselves 
 from the perilous trial. The ordinary 
 occupations of life were abandoned; 
 the plough was staid in the unfinished 
 furrow; wives gave up their husbands, 
 and mothers gave up their sons, to the 
 battles of a civil war. Death might 
 come, in honor, on the field; it might 
 come, in disgrace, on the scaffold. For 
 either and for both they were prepared. 
 The sentiment of Quincy was full in 
 their hearts. " Blandishments," said 
 that distinguished son of genius and 
 patriotism, "will not fascinate us, nor 
 will threats of a halter intimidate ; for, 
 under God, we are determined that, 
 wheresoever, whensoever, or howsoever 
 we shall be called to make our exit, we 
 will die free men." 
 
 The 17th of June saw the four New 
 England Colonies standing here, side by 
 side, to triumph or to fall together; and 
 there was with them from that moment 
 to the end of the war, what I hope will 
 remain with them for ever, one cause, 
 one countiy, one heart. 
 
 The battle of Bunker Hill was at- 
 tended with the most important effects 
 beyond its immediate results as a mili- 
 tary engagement. It created at once a 
 state of open, public war. There could 
 now be no longer a question of proceed- 
 ing against individuals, as guilty of 
 treason or rebellion. That fearful crisis 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 was past. The appeal lay to the sword, 
 and the onlj question was, whether tlie 
 spirit and the resources of the people 
 would hold out, till the object should 
 be accomplished. Nor were its general 
 consequences confined to our own coun- 
 try. The previous proceedings of the 
 Colonies, their appeals, resolutions, and 
 addresses, had made their cause known to 
 Europe. Without boasting, we may say, 
 that in no age or country has the public 
 cause been maintained with more force 
 of argument, more power of illustration, 
 or more of that persuasion which ex- 
 cited feeling and elevated principle can 
 alone bestow, than the Revolutionary 
 state papers exhibit. These papers will 
 for ever deserve to be studied, not only 
 for the spirit which they breathe, but 
 for the ability with which they were 
 written. 
 
 To this able vindication of their cause, 
 the Colonies had now added a practical 
 and severe proof of their own true de- 
 votion to it, and given evidence also of 
 the power which they could bring to its 
 support. All now saw, that, if America 
 fell, she would not fall without a strujr- 
 gle. Men felt sympathy and regard, as 
 well as surprise, when they beheld these 
 infant states, remote, unkno^^Tl, un- 
 aided, encounter the power of England, 
 and, in the first considerable battle, 
 leave more of tlieir enemies dead on the 
 field, in proportion to the number of 
 combatants, than had been recently 
 known to fall in the wars of Europe. 
 
 Information of these events, circu- 
 lating throughout the world, at length 
 laached the ears of one who now hears 
 me.' He has not forgotten the emotion 
 which the fame of Bunker Hill, and the 
 aame of "Warren, excited in his youth- 
 ful breast. 
 
 Sir, we are assembled to commemo- 
 rate the establishment of gr(;at public 
 principles of liberty, and to do honor 
 
 1 Amonj; the earliest of tlic arranjrements for 
 the celeliraiion of the 17th of June, 1825, was 
 me invitation to General Lafayette to be pres- 
 •,Dt; and he liad so timed his pro<,'ress through 
 Jie other States as to return to Massachusetts 
 in season for the great occasion. 
 
 to the distinguished dead. Tlie occa- 
 sion is too severe for eulogy of the liv- 
 ing. But, Sir, your interesting relation 
 to this country, the peculiar cu-cuni- 
 stances which surround you and sur- 
 round us, call on me to express the 
 happiness which we derive from your 
 presence and aid in this solemn com- 
 memoration. 
 
 Fortunate, fortunate man! with what 
 measure of devotion will you not thank 
 God for the circumstances of your ex- 
 traordinary life! You are connected 
 with both hemispheres and witli two 
 generations. Heaven saw tit to ordain, 
 that the electric spark of liberty should 
 be conducted, through you, from the 
 Xew World to the Old; and we, who 
 are now here to perform tliis duty of 
 patriotism, have all of us long ago re- 
 ceived it in charge from our fathers to 
 cherish your name and your virtues. 
 You will account it an instance of your 
 good fortune, Sir, that you crossed the 
 seas to visit us at a time wliich enables 
 you to be present at this solemnity. 
 You now behold tlie field, the renown 
 of which readied you in the heart of 
 France, and caused a thrill in your ar- 
 dent bosom. You see the lines of the 
 little redoubt thro\Tn up by the incredi- 
 ble diligence of Prescott; defended, to 
 the last extremity, by his lion-hearted 
 valor; and within whicli the corner- 
 stone of our monument has now taken 
 its position. You see where Warren 
 feU, and where Parker, Gardner, Mc- 
 Cleary, Moore, and other early patriots, 
 fell with him. Those who survived that 
 day, and whose lives have been pro- 
 longed to the present hour, are now 
 around you. Some of them you ha-'e 
 knoA\Ti in the tiying scenes of the war. 
 Behold I they now stretch forth their 
 feeble arms to embrace you. Behold I 
 they raise tlieir trembling voices to in- 
 voke the blessing of God on you and 
 yours for ever. 
 
 Sir, you liave assisted as in laying the 
 foundation of this structure. You have 
 lieard us rehearse, witli our feeble com- 
 mendation, tlie names of departed par 
 triots. ^Monuments and eulogy belong ^ 
 to the dead. "\Vo give them this day to 
 
THE BUNKER HILL MOXL'MENT. 
 
 131 
 
 Warren and his associates. Ou other 
 occasions they have been given to your 
 more immediate companions in arms, 
 to "Washington, to Greene, to Gates, to 
 Sullivan, and to Lincoln. AVe have 
 become reluctant to grant these, our 
 bighest and last honors, further. We 
 would gladly hold them yet back from 
 the little remnant of that immortal 
 band. Sirits in caelum redeas. Illustri- 
 ous as are yom- merits, yet far, O veiy 
 far distant be the day, when any inscrip- 
 tion shall bear your name, or any tongue 
 pronounce its eulogy! 
 
 The leading reflection to which this 
 occasion seems to invite us, respects the 
 great changes which have happened in 
 the fifty years since the battle of Bunker 
 Hill was fought. And it peculiarly 
 mai'ks the character of the present age, 
 that, in looking at these changes, and in 
 estimating their eifect on our condition, 
 we are obliged to consider, not what has 
 been done in our own country only, but 
 in others also. In these interesting 
 times, while nations are makmg separate 
 and individual advances in improvement, 
 they make, too, a common progress; like 
 vessels on a common tide, propelled by 
 the gales at different rates, according to 
 their several structure and management, 
 but all moved forward by one mighty 
 current, strong enough to bear onward 
 whatever does not sink beneath it. 
 
 A chief distinction of the present day 
 is a community of opinions and knowl- 
 edge amongst men in different nations, 
 existing in a degi'ee heretofore unknown. 
 Knowledge has, in our time, triumphed, 
 and is triumphing, over distance, over 
 difference of languages, over diversity 
 of habits, over prejudice, and over big- 
 otry. The civilized and Christian world 
 is fast learning the great lesson, that dif- 
 ference of nation does not imply neces- 
 sary hostility, and that aU contact need 
 not be war. The whole w'orld is becom- 
 ing a common field for intellect to act 
 in. Energy of mind, genius, power, 
 wheresoever it exists, may speak out in 
 any tongue, and the icorld will hear it. 
 A great chord of sentiment and feeling 
 runs through two continents, and vi- 
 
 brates over both. Every breeze wafts 
 intelligence from country to country; 
 every wave rolls it; all give it forth, and 
 all in turn receive it. There is a va^t 
 commerce of ideas ; there are marts and 
 exchanges for intellectual discoveries, 
 and a wonderful fellowship of those 
 individual intelligences w^hich make up 
 the mind and opinion of the age. ^lind 
 is the great lever of all things ; human 
 thought is the process by which human 
 ends are ultimately answered; and the 
 diffusion of knowledge, so astonishmg 
 in the last half-century, has rendered 
 innmnerable minds, variously gifted by 
 nature, competent to be competitors or 
 fellow-workers on the theatre of intel- 
 lectual operation. 
 
 From these causes important improve- 
 ments have taken place in the personal 
 condition of individuals. Generally 
 speaking, mankind are not only better 
 fed and better clothed, but they are able 
 also to enjoy more leisure ; they possess 
 more refinement and more seK-respect. 
 A superior tone of education, manners, 
 and habits prevails. This remark, most 
 true in its application to our own coun- 
 try, is also partly true when apj^lied 
 elsewhere. It is proved by the vastly 
 augmented consumption of those articles 
 of manufactm-e and of commerce which 
 contribute to the comforts and the de- 
 cencies of life; an augmentation which 
 has far outrun the progress of popida- 
 tion. And while the unexampled and 
 almost incredible use of machuiery 
 would seem to supply the place of 
 labor, labor still finds its occupation 
 and its reward; so wisely has Provi- 
 dence adjusted men's wants and desirea 
 to their condition and their capacity. 
 
 Any adequate survey, however, of the 
 progress made during the last half-ceu- 
 tury in the polite and the mechanic arts, 
 in machinery and manufactures, in com- 
 merce and agriculture, in letters and m 
 science, would require volumes. I must 
 abstain wholly from these subjects, and 
 turn for a moment to the contemplation 
 of what has been done on the great 
 question of politics and government. 
 This is the master topic of the age ; and 
 during the whole fifty years it bos in- 
 
132 
 
 THE BUNKER HILL MOXUMENi. 
 
 tensely occupied the thoughts of men. 
 The nature of civil government, its 
 ends and uses, hare been canvassed and 
 investigated ; ancient ojiinions attacked 
 and defended; new ideas recommended 
 and resisted, by whatever power the 
 mind of man could bring to the contro- 
 versy. From the closet and the public 
 halls the debate has been transferred to 
 the field ; and the world has been shaken 
 by wars of imexampled magnitude, and 
 the greatest variety of fortune. A day 
 of peace has at length succeeded; and 
 now that the strife has subsided, and 
 the smoke cleared away, we may begin 
 to see what has actually been done, per- 
 manently changing the state and condi- 
 tion of human society. And, without 
 dwelling on particular circumstances, it 
 is most apparent, that, from the before- 
 mentioned causes of augmented knowl- 
 edge and improved individual condition, 
 a real, substantial, and important change 
 has taken place, and is taking place, 
 highly favorable, on the whole, to hu- 
 man liberty and human happiness. 
 
 The gi-eat wheel of political revolution 
 began to move in America. Here its 
 rotation was guarded, regular, and safe. 
 Transferred to the other continent, from 
 unfortunate but natural causes, it re- 
 ceived an irregular and violent impulse ; 
 it whirled along with a fearful celerity ; 
 till at length, like the chariot- wheels in 
 the races of antiquity, it took fire from 
 the rapidity of its own motion, and 
 blazed onward, spreading conflagration 
 and terror around. 
 
 We learn from the result of this ex- 
 periment, how fortunate was our own 
 condition, and how admirably the char- 
 acter of our people was calcidated for 
 Betting the gi-eat example of popular 
 governments. The possession of power 
 did not turn the heads of the American 
 people, for they had long been in the 
 habit of exercising a great degi'ee of 
 self-control. Although the paramount 
 authority of the parent state existed 
 over tiiem, yet a large field of legisla- 
 tion had always been open to our Colo- 
 nial assemblies. They were accustomed 
 to representative bodies and the forms 
 of free gcverumeut; they understood 
 
 the doctrine of the di^-ision of powei 
 among different branches, and the neces« 
 sity of checks on each. The character 
 of our countrjTuen, moreover, was sober, 
 moral, and religious; and there was little 
 in the change to shock their feelings of 
 justice and humanity, or even to diiturb 
 an honest prejudice. We had no do- 
 mestic throne to overturn, no privileged 
 orders to cast down, no violent changes 
 of property to encounter. In the Ameri- 
 can Revolution, no man sought or wished 
 for more than to defend and enjoy his 
 own. None hoped for plunder or for 
 spoil. Rapacitj' was unkno\\'n to it; 
 the axe was not among the instruments 
 of its accomplishment ; and we aU know 
 that it could not have lived a single day 
 under any well-founded imputation of 
 possessing a tendency adverse to the 
 Christian religion. 
 
 It need not surprise us, that, under 
 circumstances less auspicious, political 
 revolutions elsewhere, even when well 
 intended, have terminated differently. 
 It is, indeed, a great achievement, it is 
 the master-work of the world, to estab- 
 lish governments entirely popular on 
 lasting fomidations; nor is it easy, in- 
 deed, to introduce the popular principle 
 at all into governments to which it has 
 been altogether a stranger. It cannot 
 be doubted, however, that Emope has 
 come out of the contest, in which she 
 has been so long engaged, with greatly 
 superior knowledge, and, in many re- 
 spects, in a highly improved condition. 
 Whatever benefit has been acquired is 
 likely to be retained, for it consists 
 mainly in the acquisition of more en- 
 liglitened ideas. And although king- 
 doms and provinces may be wrested 
 from the hands that hold them, in the 
 same manner tliey were obtained; al- 
 though ordinary and vulgar power may, 
 in human affairs, be lost as it has been 
 won; yet it is the glorious prerogative 
 of the empire of knowledge, that what 
 it gains it never loses. On the contrary, 
 it increases by the multiple of its own 
 power; all its ends become means; all 
 its attainments, helps to new conquests. 
 Its whole abundant harvest is but so much 
 seed wheat, and nothing has limited, aud 
 
THE BU 
 
 nothing can limit, the amount of < 
 product. 
 
 Under the influence of this ra^ 
 creasing knowledge, tlie people h 
 gun, in all forms of governm 
 think and to reason, on affairs ot 
 Kegarding government as an insti 
 for the public good, they dema , 
 knowledge of its operations, and a 
 ticiputiou in its exercise. A call for , 
 representative system, wherever it is i , 
 enjoyed, and where there is already i i. 
 telligence enough to estimate itsvahui 
 is perseveringly nuule. Wliere men ma r 
 speak out, they demand it; where tht 
 bayonet is at theii- throats, they pray 
 for it. 
 
 "When Louis the Fourteenth said, " I 
 am the state," he expressed the essence 
 of the doctrine of unlimited power. By 
 the rules of that system, the people are 
 / disconnected from the state ; they are its 
 subjects; it is their lord. These ideas, 
 foLuided in the love of power, and long 
 supported by the excess and the abuse 
 of it, are yielding, in our age, to other 
 opinions; and the civilized world seems 
 at last to be proceeding to the conviction 
 of that fundamental and manifest truth, 
 that the powers of government are but 
 a trust, and that they cannot be lawfidly 
 exercised but for the good of the com- 
 munity. As knowledge is more and 
 more extended, this conviction become 
 more and more general. Knowledge 
 in truth, is the gi-eat sun in the firma 
 ment. Life and power are scatters 
 with all its beams. The prayer of th 
 Grecian champion, when enveloped h 
 unnatural clouds and darkness, is thi 
 appropriate political supplication for the 
 people of every country not yet' blessed 
 with free institutions: — 
 
 " Dispel this cloud, the light of heaven restore. 
 Give me to SEii, — and Ajax asks no more." 
 
 We may hope that the growing influ- 
 ence of enlightened sentiment will pro- 
 iLote the permanent peace of the world. 
 Wars to ma'ntain family alliances, to 
 uphold or to cast down dynasties, and 
 to regulate successions to thrones, which 
 have occupied so much room in the his- 
 tory of modern times, if not less likely 
 to happen at all, will be less likely to be- 
 
rU-MEN'T. 
 
 lains stretch out, in beauty, to 
 of civilized man, and at the 
 bidding of the voice of political 
 the waters of darkness retire. 
 
 ., now, let us indulge an honest 
 
 ition in the conviction of the ben- 
 
 .vhich the example of our country 
 
 produced, and is likely to produce, 
 
 1 human freedom and human happi- 
 ess. Let us endeavor to comprehend 
 n all its magnitude, and to feel in all 
 its importance, the part assigned to us 
 in the great drama of human affairs. 
 We are placed at the head of the system 
 of representative and popular govern- 
 ments. Thus far our example shows 
 that such governments are compatible, 
 not only with respectability and power, 
 but with repose, with peace, with secu- 
 rity of personal rights, with good laws, 
 and a just administration. 
 
 We are not propagandists. "NATierever 
 other systems are preferred, either as 
 being thought better in themselves, or 
 as better suited to existing condition, 
 we leave the preference to be enjoyed. 
 Our history hitherto proves, however, 
 that the popular form is practicable, and 
 that with wisdom and knowledire men 
 may govern themselves; and the duly 
 incumbent on us is, to preserve the con- 
 sistency of this cheering example, and 
 take care that nothing may weaken its 
 \uthority with the world. If, in our 
 ;ase, the representative system ultimate- 
 y fail, popular governments must be 
 ironounced impossible. No combina- 
 ion of circumstances more favorable 
 ,0 the experiment can ever be expected 
 to occur. The last hopes of mankind, 
 therefore, rest with us; and if it should 
 be proclaimed, that our example had 
 become an argmnent against the experi- 
 ment, the knell of jwiiular liberty would 
 be sounded throughout the earth. 
 
 These are excitements to duty; but 
 they are not suggestions of doubt. Our 
 history and our condition, all that is 
 gone before us, and all that surrounds 
 us, authorize the belief, that popular 
 governments, tiiough subject to occa- 
 sional variations, in form perhaps not 
 ahvays for the better, may yet, m their 
 
 \ 
 
THE BUNKER HILL :\rONUMENT. 
 
 135 
 
 general character, be as durable and 
 permanent as other systems. We know, 
 indeed, that in our country any otlier is 
 impossible. The principle of free gov- 
 ernments adheres to the Ameiican soil. 
 It is bedded iu it, immovable as its 
 mountains. 
 
 And let the sacred obligations which 
 have devolved on this generation, and 
 on lis, sink deep into our hearts. Those 
 %\-ho established our liberty and our gov- 
 errmient are daily dropping from among 
 us. The great trust now descends to 
 new hands. Let us apply ourselves to 
 tliat which is presented to us, as our 
 appropriate object. We can win no lau- 
 rels iu a war for independence. Earlier 
 and worthier hands have gathered them 
 all. Xor are there places for us by the 
 side of Solon, and Alfred, and other 
 founders of states. Our fathers have 
 filled them. But there remains to us a 
 gi-eat duty of defence and preservation ; 
 and there is opened to us, also, a noble 
 pursuit, to which the spirit of the times 
 strongly invites us. Our proper business 
 is improvement. Let our age be the age 
 
 of improvement. In a day ol peace, let 
 us advance the arts of peace and the 
 works of peace. Let us develop the re- ^ 
 som'ces of our land, call forth its pow- 
 ers, build up its institutions, promote 
 all its great interests, and see whether 
 we also, in our day and generation, may 
 not perform something worthy to be re- 
 membered. Let us cultivate a true spirit 
 of union and harmony. In pursuing the 
 gi-eat objects which our condition points 
 out to us, let us act under a settled con- 
 viction, and an habitual feeling, that 
 these twenty-four States are one coun- 
 try. Let our conceptions be enlarged to 
 the circle of our duties. Let us extend 
 our ideas over the whole of the vast field 
 in which we are called to act. Let our 
 object be, our country, our whole 
 
 COUNTRY, AND NOTHING BUT OUR 
 
 COUNTRY. And, by the blessing of 
 God, may that country itself become a 
 vast and splendid monument, not of op- 
 pression and terror, but of Wisdom, of 
 Peace, and of Liberty, upon which the 
 world may gaze with admiration for 
 everl 
 
THE COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL 
 
 MONUMENT. 
 
 AN ADDRESS DELIVERED ON BUNKER HILL, ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 1343, 
 ON OCCASION OF THE COMPLETION OF THE MONL^ilENT. 
 
 \ly tlic introductory note to the preceding 
 Address, a brief account is given of the 
 origin and progress of the measures adopted 
 for the erection of the Bunlcer Hill Monu- 
 ment, down to the time of laj'ing tlie cor- 
 ner-stone, compiled from Mr. Frothingham's 
 History of the Siege of Boston. Tiie same 
 vahiable work (pp. 345-352) relates the ob- 
 stacles which presented themselves to the 
 rapid execution of the design, and the means 
 by which they were overcome. In this nar- 
 rative, Mr. Frothingham has done justice to 
 the efforts and exertions of the successive 
 boards of direction and officers of the Asso- 
 ciation, to the skill and disinterestedness of 
 the architect, to the liberality of distin- 
 guished individuals, to the public spirit of 
 the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic As- 
 sociation, in promoting a renewed subscrip- 
 tion, and to the patriotic zeal of the ladies 
 of Boston and the vicinity, in holding a 
 most successful fair. As it would be diffi- 
 cult farther to condense the information 
 contained in this interesting sununar^', we 
 must refer the reader to Mr. Frothingham's 
 work for an adequate account of the causes 
 which delayed the completion of the monu- 
 ment for nearly seventeen years, and of the 
 resources and exertions by which the de- 
 sired end was finally attained. The last 
 «tone was raised to its place on the morning 
 / of the 23d of July, 1842. 
 
 It was determined V)y the directors of the 
 Association, that the completion of the work 
 should be celebrated in a manner not less 
 imposing than that in which the laying of 
 the corner-stone had been celebrated, seven- 
 teen years before. The co-operation of Mr. 
 Webster was again invited, and, notwith- 
 standing the pressure of his engagements 
 as Secretary of State at Washington, was 
 again iiatriotically yielded. Many circimi- 
 Btances conspired to increase the interest of 
 the occasion. The completion of the monu- 
 ment had been long delayed, but in the in- 
 terval the subject had been kept much 
 before the ptiblic min<l. Mr. Webster's ad- 
 dress on the 17th of .lune, 1^25, had obtained 
 tlie widest circulation tiiroughout the coun- 
 
 try ; passages from it had passed inta 
 household words throughout the Union. 
 Wherever they were repeated, they made 
 the Bunker Hill Monument a familiar 
 thought with the people. Meantime, Bos- 
 ton and Charlestown had doubled their 
 population, and the multiplication of rail 
 roads in every direction enabled a person, 
 in almost any part of New England, to reach 
 the metropolis in a day. The President of 
 the United States and his Cabinet had ac- 
 cepted invitations to be present ; delegations 
 of the descendants of New England were 
 present from the remotest parts of the 
 Union ; one hundred and eight surviving 
 veterans of the Revolution, among whom 
 were some who were in tlie battle of Bunker 
 Hill, imparted a touching interest to the 
 scene. 
 
 Every thing conspired to promote the 
 success of the ceremonial. The day was 
 uncommonly fine ; cool for the season, and 
 clear. A large volunteer force from vari- 
 ous parts of the country had assembled for 
 the occasion, and formed a brilliant escort 
 to an immense procession, as it moved from 
 Boston to the battle-ground on the hill. 
 The bank which slopes down from the obe- 
 lisk on the eastern side of Monument Square 
 was covered with seats, rising in the form 
 of an am])liitheatre, under the open sky. 
 These had been prepared for ladies, who 
 had assembled in great numbers, awaiting 
 the arrival of the procession. When it ar- 
 rived, it was received into a large optn area 
 in front of these seats. Mr. Webster was 
 stationed upon an elevated platform, in 
 front of the audience and of the monument 
 towering in tlie backgroimd. According 
 to Mr. Frothinguam s ».sumate, a hundred 
 thou.sand persons were gathered about the 
 spot, and nearly half that number are sup- 
 posed to have been within the reach of the 
 orator's voice. The ground rises slightly 
 between the platform and the Monuiiunt 
 Square, so that the whole of this Immense 
 concourse, compactly crowded -.rgether, 
 breathless with attention, swaye 1 by one 
 si'ntiuient of admiration and d. .ight. was 
 
COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 137 
 
 within the full view of the speaker. The 
 position and the occasion were the height 
 of the moral sublime. " Wlien, after say- 
 ing, ' It is not from my lips, it could not be 
 from any human lips, that that strain of 
 eloquence is this day to flow most compe- 
 tent to move and excite the vast multitude 
 around me, — the powi-rful sj)c:iker stands 
 motionless bufore us,' — lie jjaused, and point- 
 ed in silent admiration to the sublime struc- 
 ture, the audience burst into long and loud 
 applause. It was some moments before the 
 speaker could go on with the address."] 
 
 A DUTY has been performed. A work 
 of gratitude and patriotism is completed. 
 This structure, having its foundations 
 in soil which drank deep of early Revo- 
 lutionary blood, has at length reached 
 its destined lieiglit, and now lifts its 
 summit to the skies. 
 
 "We have assembled to celebrate the 
 accomplishment of this undertaking, and 
 to indulge afresh in tlie recollection of 
 the great event which it is designed to 
 commemorate. Eighteen years, more 
 than half the ordinary duration of a 
 generation of mankind, have elapsed 
 since the corner-stone of this monument 
 was laid. The hopes of its projectors 
 rested on voluntary contributions, pri- 
 vate munificence, and the general favor 
 of the public. These hopes have not 
 been disappointed. Donations have been 
 made by individuals, in some cases of 
 large amount, and smaller sums have 
 been contributed by thousands. All 
 who regard the object itself as impor- 
 tant, and its accomplishment, therefore, 
 as a good attained, will entertain sincere 
 respect and gratitude for the unwearied 
 efforts of the successive presidents, 
 boards of directors, and committees of 
 the Association which has had the gen- 
 eral control of the work. The architect, 
 equally entitled to our thanks and com- 
 mendation, will find other reward, also, 
 for his labor and skill, in the beauty and 
 elegarce of the obelisk itself, and the 
 distinction which, as a work of art, it 
 confers upon him. 
 
 At a period when the prospects of fur- 
 ther progress in the undertaking were 
 gloomy and discouraging, the Mechanic 
 Association, by a most praiseworthy and 
 vigorous effort, raised new funds for car- 
 rying It forward, and saw them applied 
 
 with fidelity, economy, and .skill. It ia 
 a grateful duty to make public acknowl- 
 edgments of such timely and eflBcient 
 aid. 
 
 The last effort and the last contribu- 
 tion were from a different source. Gar- 
 lands of grace and elegance were destined 
 to crown a work which had its com- 
 mencement in manly patriotism. The 
 winning power of the sex addressed it- 
 self to the public, and all that was 
 needed to carry the monument to its 
 proposed height, and to give to it its 
 finish, was promptly supplied. The 
 mothers and the daughters of the land 
 contributed thus, most successfully, to 
 whatever there is of beauty in the monu- 
 ment itself, or whatever of utility and 
 public benefit and gratification there in 
 in its completion. 
 
 Of those with whom the plan origi- 
 nated of erecting on this spot a 
 monument worthy of the event to be 
 commemorated, many are now present; 
 but othei's, alas ! have themselves be- 
 come subjects of monumental inscrip- 
 tion. AVilliam Tudor, an accomplished 
 scholar, a distinguished writer, a most 
 amiable man, allied both by birth and 
 sentiment to the patriots of the Revolu- 
 tion, died while on public service abroad, 
 and now lies buried in a foreign land.* 
 William Sullivan, a name fragrant of 
 Revolutionary merit, and of public ser- 
 vice and jiublic virtue, who liimself par- 
 took in a high degi'ee of the respect and 
 confidence of the community, and yet 
 was always most loved where best known, 
 has also been gathered to his fathers. 
 And last, George Blake, a lawyer of 
 learning and eloquence, a man of wit 
 and of talent, of social qualities the most 
 agreeable and fascinating, and of gifts 
 which enabled him to exercise large 
 sway over public assemblies, has closed 
 his human career. =2 I know that in the 
 crowds before me there are those from 
 whose eyes tears will flow at the men- 
 
 1 AVilliam Tudor died at Rio de Janeiro, as 
 Charge d' Affaires ol the United States, in 
 1830." 
 
 - William Sullivan died in Boston in 1839, 
 George Blake in 1841, both gentlemen of great 
 political and legal eminence. 
 
138 
 
 COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MON'UMENT. 
 
 tion of these names. But such mention 
 is due to their general character, their 
 public and private virtues, and espe- 
 cially, on this occasion, to the spirit and 
 zeal with which they entered into the 
 undertaking which is now completed. 
 
 I have spoken only of those who are 
 no longer numbered with the living. 
 But a long life, now drawing towards 
 its close, always distinguished by acts 
 of public sjiirit, humanity, and charity, 
 forming a character which has already 
 become historical, and sanctified by 
 publ'c regard and the affection of 
 friends, may confer even on the living 
 the proper immunity of the dead, and 
 be the fit subject of honorable mention 
 and warm commendation. Of the early 
 projectors of the desigu of this monu- 
 ment, one of the most prominent, the 
 most zealous, and the most efficient, is 
 Thomas 11. Perkins. It was beneath 
 his ever-hospitable roof that those whom 
 I have mentioned, and othei's yet living 
 and now present, having assembled for 
 the purpose, adopted the first step to- 
 wards erecting a monument on Bunker 
 Hill. Long may he remain, with un- 
 impaired faculties, in tlie wide field of 
 his usefulness 1 His charities have dis- 
 tilled, like the dew^s of heaven; he has 
 fed the hungry, and clothed the naked; 
 he has given sight to the blind; aud for 
 such virtues there is a reward on high, 
 of which all human memorials, all lan- 
 guage of brass and stone, are but hum- 
 ble tj'pes and attempted imitations. 
 
 Time aud nature have had their 
 course, in diminishing the number of 
 those wliom we met here on the 17th of 
 June, 1825. Most of the Revolutionary 
 characters then present have since de- 
 ceased; aud Lafayette sleeps in his na- 
 tive land. Yet the name and blood of 
 Warren are with us; the kindred of 
 Putnam are also here; and near me, 
 universally beloved for his character 
 and his virtues, and now venerable for 
 his years, sits the son of the noble- 
 hearted aud daring Prescott.^ Gideon 
 
 ' William Prescott (since deceased, in 1844), 
 •on of Colonel Willinm Prescott, who com- 
 manded on tlie ITtli of .June, I7~b, and father 
 of William 11. I'rcbcott, the bisloriau. 
 
 Foster of Dan vers, Enos Re\-nolds ot 
 Boxford, Phineas John.son, Robert An- 
 drews, Elijah Dresser, Josiah Cleave- 
 land, .Jesse Smith, Philip Bagley, Xeed- 
 ham ilaynard, Roger Plaisted, Joseph 
 Stephens, Xehemiah Porter, and James 
 Harvey, who bore arms for their countiy 
 either at Concord and Lexington, on the 
 I9th of April, or on Bunker Hill, all now 
 far advanced in ,age, have come here to- 
 day, to look once more on the field 
 where their valor was proved, and to re- 
 ceive a hearty outpouring of our respect. 
 
 They have long outlived the troubles 
 and dangers of the Revolution ; they 
 have outlived the evils arising from the 
 want of a united and efficient govern- 
 ment ; they have outlived the menace of 
 imminent dangers to the public liberty ; 
 they have outlived nearly all their con- 
 temporaries ; — but they have not out- 
 lived, they cannot outlive, the affection- 
 ate gratitude of their country. Heaven 
 has not allotted to this generation an 
 opportunity of rendering high services, 
 and manifesting strong personal devo- 
 tion, such as they rendered and mani- 
 fested, and in such a cause as that which 
 roused the patriotic fires of their youth- 
 ful breasts, and neiTed the strength of 
 their arms. But we may praise what 
 we cannot equal, and celebrate actions 
 which we were not born to perform. 
 Pulchrum est benefacere reipublicce, etiam 
 bene dicere haud absurdum est. 
 
 The Bunker Hill Monument is fin- 
 ished. Here it stands. Fortunate in 
 the hi<jh natural eminence on which it 
 is placed, higher, infinitely higher in 
 its objects and purpose, it rises over 
 the land and over the sea; and, visi- 
 ble, at their homes, to three hun- 
 dred thousand of the people of Mas- 
 sachusetts, it stands a memorial of 
 the last, and a monitor to the present, 
 and to all succeeding generations. I 
 have spoken of the loftiness of its pur- 
 pose. If it had been without any other 
 design than the creation of a work of 
 ;irt, the granite of which it is composed 
 would have slept in its native bed. It 
 has a purjHJse, and that purpose gives 
 it its character. That purptise enrobes it 
 with dignity and moral grandeur. That 
 
COMrLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 13i 
 
 well-known purpose it is which causes 
 us to look up to it with a feeling of awe. 
 It is itself the orator of tliis occasion. 
 It is not from my lips, it cnuld not be 
 from any human lips, that that strain of 
 eloquence is this day to flow most com- 
 petent to move and excite the vast 
 multitudes around me. The powerful 
 speaker stands motionless before us. 
 It is a plain shaft. It bears no inscrip- 
 tions, fronting to the rising sun, from 
 which the future antiquary shall wipe 
 the <hist. Xor does the rising sun cause 
 tones of music to issue from ils summit. 
 But at the rising of the sun, and at the 
 sefting of the sun; in the blaze of noon- 
 day, and beneath the milder effulgence 
 of lunar light; it looks, it speaks, it 
 acts, to the full comprehension of every 
 American mind, and the awakening of 
 glowing enthusiasm in every American 
 heart. Its silent, but awful utterance; 
 its deep pathos, as it brings to our con- 
 templation the 17th of June, 1775, and 
 the consequences which have resulted to 
 us, to our country, and to the world, 
 from the events of that day, and which 
 we know must continue to rain influence 
 on the destinies of mankind to the end 
 of time; the elevation with which it 
 raises us liigh above the ordinary feel- 
 ings of life, — surpass all that the study 
 of the closet, or even the inspiration of 
 genius, can produce. To-day it speaks 
 to us. Its future auditories will be the 
 successive generations of men, as they 
 rise up before it and gather around it. 
 Its speech will be of patriotism and 
 courage; of civil and religious liberty; 
 of free government; of the moral im- 
 provement and elevation of mankind; 
 and of the immortal memory of those 
 wb.o with heroic devotion, have sacri- 
 ficed their lives for their country. ^ 
 
 In the older world, numerous fabrics 
 still exist, reared by human hands, but 
 whose object has been lost in the dark- 
 ness of ages. They are now monuments 
 of nothing but the labor and skill which 
 constructed them. 
 
 The mighty pyramid itself, half buried 
 m the sands of Africa, has nothing to 
 
 1 See the Note at the end of the Address. 
 
 bring down and report to us, but the 
 power of kings and the servitude of the 
 people. If it had any purpose beyona 
 that of a mausoleum, such purpose has 
 perished from history and from tradi- 
 tion. If asked for its moral object, its 
 admonition, its sentiment, its instruc- 
 tion to mankind, or any high end in ita 
 erection, it is silent; silent as the mil- 
 lions which lie in the dust at its ba.se, 
 and in tlie catacombs which surround 
 it. Without a just moral object, there- 
 fore, made known to man, though raised 
 against the skies, it excites only convic- 
 tion of power, mixed with strange won- 
 der. But if the civilization of the pres- 
 ent race of men, founded, as it is, in 
 solid science, the true knowledge of na- 
 ture, and vast discoveries in art, and 
 which is elevated and purified by moial 
 sentiment and by the truths of Chiis- 
 tianity, be not destined to destruction 
 before the final termination of human 
 existence on earth, the object and pm'- 
 pose of this edifice will be known till 
 that hour shall come. And even if civ- 
 ilization should be subverted, and the 
 truths of the Christian religion obscured 
 by a new deluge of barbarism, the 
 memory of Bunker Hill and the Ameri- 
 can Revolution will still be elements and 
 parts of the knowledge which shall be 
 possessed by the last man to whom the 
 light of civilization and Christianity 
 shall be extended. 
 
 This celebration is honored by the 
 presence of the chief executive magis- 
 trate of the Union. An occasion so na- 
 tional in its object and character, and so 
 much connected with that Revolution 
 from which the government sprang at 
 the head of which he is placed, may 
 well receive from him this mark of at- 
 tention and respect. Well acquainted 
 with Yorktown, the scene of the last 
 great military struggle of the Revolu- 
 tion, his eye now surveys the field of 
 Bunker Hill, the theatre of the first of 
 those important conflicts. He sees where 
 Warren fell, where Putnam, and Pres- 
 cott, and Stark, and Knowlton, and 
 Brooks fought. He beholds the spot 
 where a thousand trained soldiers of 
 England were smitten to the earth, in 
 
140 
 
 COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 the first effort of revolutionary war, by 
 the arm of a bold and determined veo- 
 mani-y, contending for liberty and their 
 country. And while all assembled here 
 entertain towards him sincere personal 
 good wishes and the high respect due to 
 his elevated office and station, it is not 
 to be doubted that he enters, with true 
 American feeling, into the patriotic en- 
 thusiivsin kindled by the occasion which 
 animates the multitudes that surround 
 him. 
 
 His Excellency, the Governor of the 
 Commonwealth, the Governor of Rhode 
 Island, and the other distinguished pub- 
 lic men whom we have the honor to re- 
 ceive as visitors and guests to-day, will 
 cordially unite in a celebration connected 
 with the gieat event of the Revolution- 
 ary war. 
 
 Xo name in the history of 1775 and 
 1776 is more distinguished than that 
 borne by an ex- President of the United 
 States, whom we expected to see here, 
 but whose ill health prevents his attend- 
 ance. Whenever popular rights were to 
 be asserted, an Adams was present; and 
 when the time came for the formal Dec- 
 laration of Independence, it was the 
 voice of an Adams that shook the halls 
 of Congress. "\\'e wish we could have 
 welcomed to us this day the inheritor of 
 Revolutionary blood, and the just and 
 worthy representative of high Revolu- 
 tionary names, merit, and services. 
 
 Banners and badges, processions and 
 flags, announce to us, that amidst this 
 uncounted throng are thousands of na- 
 tives of New England now residents in 
 other States. Welcome, ye kindred 
 names, with kindred blood ! From the 
 broad savannas of the South, from the 
 newer regions of the West, from amitlst 
 the hundreds of thousands of men of 
 Eastern origin who cultivate the rieli 
 valley of the Genesee or live along the 
 chain of the Lakes, from the mountains 
 of Pennsylvania, and from the thronged 
 cities of the coast, welcome, welcome 1 
 "Wherever else you may be strangers, 
 here you are ill at home. You assem- 
 ble at this shrine of liberty, near the 
 family altars at which your earliest de- 
 votions were paid to Heaven, near to 
 
 the temples of worship first entered by 
 you, and near to the schools and colleges 
 in which your education was received. 
 You come hither with a glorious ances- 
 try of liberty. You bring names which 
 are on the rolls of Lexington, Concord, 
 and Bunker Hill. You come, some of 
 j'ou, once more to be embraced by an 
 aged Revolutionary father, or to receive 
 another, perhaps a last, blessing, be- 
 stowed in love and tears, by a mother, 
 yet surviving to witness and to enjoy 
 your prosperity and happiness. 
 
 But if family associations and the 
 recollections of the past bring you hither 
 with greater alacrity, and mingle with 
 your greeting much of local attachment 
 and private affection, greeting also be 
 given, free and heartj- greeting, to every 
 American citizen who treads this sacred 
 soil with patriotic feeling, and respires 
 with pleasm-e in an atmosphere per- 
 fumed with the recollections of 17751 
 This occasion is respectable, nay, it is 
 grand, it Ls sublime, by the nationality 
 of its sentiment. Among the seventeen 
 millions of hapj)y people who form the 
 American community, there is not one 
 who has not an interest in this monu- 
 ment, as there is not one that has not a 
 deep and abiding interest in that which 
 it commeurorates. 
 
 Woe betide the man who brings to this 
 day's worship feeling less than wholly 
 American! Woe betide the man who 
 can stand here with the fires of local 
 resentments burning, or the purpose of 
 fomenting local jealousies and the strifes 
 of local interests festering and rankling 
 in his heart I L'nion, established in jus- 
 tice, in patriotism, and the most plain 
 and obvious common interest, — union, 
 founded on the same love of liberty, ce- 
 mented by blood shed in the same com- 
 mon cause, — union has been the source 
 of aU our glory and greatness thus far, 
 and is the ground of all our highest 
 hopes. This column stands on Union. 
 I know not that it might not keep its 
 position, if the American Union, in the 
 mad conflict of human passions, and in 
 the strife of parties and factions, should 
 be broken up and destroyed. I know 
 not that it would totter and fall to the 
 
COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 141 
 
 eartli, and miiiyle its fragments with the 
 fragments of Liberty and the Consti- 
 tution, when State should be separated 
 from State, and faction and dismemVter- 
 ment obliterate for ever all the hopes of 
 the founders of our republic, and the 
 great inheritance of their children. It 
 might stand. But who, from beneath 
 the weight of mortification and shame 
 that would oppress him, could look up 
 to behold it ? ^\^lose eyeballs would 
 not be seared by such a spectacle ? For 
 my part, should I live to such a time, I 
 shall avert my eyes from it for ever. 
 
 It is nol; as a mere military encoun- 
 ter of hostile armies that the battle of 
 Bunker Hill presents its principal claim 
 to attention. Yet, even as a mere bat- 
 tle, there were circumstances attending 
 it extraordinary in character, and enti- 
 tling it to peculiar distinction. It was 
 fought on this eminence ; in the neigh- 
 borhood of yonder city ; in the presence 
 of many more spectators than there were 
 combatants in the conflict. ]Men, w^o- 
 men, and children, from every com- 
 manding position, were gazing at the 
 battle, and looking for its results with 
 all the eagerness natural to those who 
 knew that the issue was fraught with 
 the deepest consequences to themselves, 
 personally, as well as to their country. 
 Yet, on the 16th of June, 1775, there 
 was nothing around this hill but verdure 
 and culture. There was, indeed, the 
 note of aw^ul preparation in Boston. 
 There was the Provincial army at Cam- 
 bridge, with its right flank resting on 
 Dorchester, and its left on Chelsea. 
 But here all was peace. Tranquillity 
 reigned around. On the 17th, every 
 thing was changed. On this eminence 
 had arisen, in the night, a redoubt, built 
 by Tresoott, and in which he held com- 
 mand. Perceived by the enemy at dawn, 
 it was immediately cannonaded from the 
 floating batteries in the river, and from 
 the opposite shore. And then ensued 
 the hurried movement in Boston, and 
 soon the troops of Britain embarked in 
 the attempt to dislodge the Colonists. 
 In an hour ever)' thing indicated an im- 
 mediate and bloody conflict. Love of 
 liberty on one side, proud defiance of 
 
 rebellion on the other, hopes and fears, 
 and courage and daring, on both sides, 
 animated the hearts of the combatants 
 as they hung on the edge of battle. 
 
 I siq>pose it would be difficult, in a 
 military point of view, to ascribe to the 
 leaders on either side any just motive 
 for the engagement which followed. On 
 the one hand, it could not have been 
 very important to the Americans to at- 
 tempt to hem the British within the 
 town, by advancing one single post a 
 quarter of a mile; while, on the other 
 hand, if the British found it essential to 
 dislodge the American troops, they had 
 it in their power at no expense of life. 
 By moving up their ships and batteries, 
 they could have completely cut off all 
 communication with the mainland over 
 the Neck, and the forces in the redoubt 
 would have been reduced to a state of 
 famine in forty-eight hours. 
 
 But that was not the day for any such 
 consideration on either side ! Both par- 
 ties were anxious to try the strength 
 of their arms. The pride of England 
 would not permit the rebels, as she 
 termed them, to defy her to the teeth; 
 and, without for a moment calculating 
 the cost, the British general determined 
 to destroy the fort immediately. On the 
 other side, Prescott and his gallant fol- 
 lowers longed and thirsted for a decisive 
 trial of strength and of courage. They 
 wished a battle, and wished it at once. 
 And this is the true secret of the move- 
 ments on this hill. 
 
 I wiU not attempt to describe that 
 battle. The cannonading; the landing 
 of the British ; their advance ; the cool- 
 ness with which the charge was met; 
 the repulse; the second attack; the seo- 
 ond repulse; the burning of Charles- 
 town; and, finally, the closing assault, 
 and the slow retreat of tlie Americans, 
 — the history of all these is familiar. 
 
 But the consequences of the battle of 
 Bunker Hill were greater than' those of 
 any ordinary conflict, although between 
 armies of far greater force, and termi- 
 nating with more immediate advantage 
 on the one side or the other. It was the 
 first gi-eat battle of the Revolution ; and 
 not only the first blow, but the blow 
 
142 
 
 COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT 
 
 which determined the contest. It did 
 not, indeed, put an end to tlie war, but 
 in the then existing hostile state of feel- 
 ing, the diflculties could only be re- 
 ferred to the arbitration of the .^word. 
 And one tiling is cert ain : that after the 
 New England troops had shown them- 
 selves able to face and repulse the regu- 
 lars, it, was decided that peace never 
 cculi be established, but upon the basis 
 of the independence of the Colonies. 
 WTien the sun of that day went down, 
 the e'»^'nt of Independence •was no longer 
 doubtful. In a few days Washington 
 heard of the battle, and he inquired if 
 the militia had stood the fire of the reg- 
 ulars. "When told that they had not 
 only stood that fire, but reserved their 
 own tin the enemy was within eight 
 rods, and then poured it in with tre- 
 mendous effect, " Then," exclaimed he, 
 " the liberties of the country are safe! " 
 
 The consequences of this battle were 
 ]ust of the same importance as the Rev- 
 olution itself. 
 
 If there was nothing of value in the 
 principles of the American Revolution, 
 then there is nothing valuable iu tlje 
 battle of Bunker Hill and its conse- 
 quences. But if the Revolution was an 
 era in the history of man favorable to 
 human happiness, if it was an event 
 which marked the progress of man all 
 over the world from despotism to lib- 
 erty, then this monument is not raised 
 without cause. Then the battle of 
 Bunker Ilill is not an event undeserving 
 celebrations, commemorations, and re- 
 joicings, now and in all coining times. 
 
 What, then, is the true and peculiar 
 piinciple of the American Revolution, 
 and of the systems of government which 
 it luis confirmed and established? The 
 truth is, that the American Revolution 
 was not caused by the instantaneous dis- 
 covery of principles of government be- 
 fore unheard of, or the practical adoption 
 of political ideas such as had never be- 
 fore entered into the minds of men. It 
 was but the full development of princi- 
 ples of government, forms of society, 
 and political sentiments, the origin of 
 all which lay back two centuries in Eng- 
 lish and American history. 
 
 The discovery of America, its colo- 
 nization by the nations of Europe, the 
 history and progi-ess of the colonies, 
 from their establishment to the time 
 when the principal of them threw off 
 their allegiance to the respective statea 
 by which they had been planted, and 
 fomided governments of their own, con- 
 stitute one of the most interesting por- 
 tions of the annals of man. These 
 events occupied three hundred years; 
 during wliich period civilization and 
 knowledge made steady progress in the 
 Old World; so that Europe, at the com- 
 mencement of the nineteenth century, 
 had become gi-eatly changed from that 
 Eurofje which began the colonization of 
 America at the close of the fifteenth, 
 or the commencement of the sixteenth. 
 And what is most material to my pres- 
 ent purpose is, that in the progress of 
 the first of these centuries, that is to 
 say, from the discovery of America to 
 the settlements of Yii'ginia and ]\Iassa- 
 chusetts, political and religious events 
 took place, which most materially af 
 fected the state of society and the senti- 
 ments of mankind, especially in England 
 and in parts of Continental Europe. 
 After a few feeble and unsuccessful ef- 
 forts by England, under Heniy the 
 Seventh, to plant colonies in America, 
 no designs of that kind were prosecuted 
 for a long period, either by the English 
 government or any of its subjects. 
 AVithout inquiring into the causes of 
 this delay, its consequences are suffi- 
 ciently clear and striking. England, in 
 this lapse of a centmy, unknown to her- 
 self, but under the providence of God 
 and the influence of events, was fitting 
 herself for the work of colonizing North 
 America, on such principles, and by such 
 men, as should spread the English name 
 and English blood, in time, over a great 
 jiortion of the AVestern hemisphere. 
 The commercial spirit was greatly fos- 
 tered by several laws passed in the reign 
 of Henry the Seventh; and in the same 
 reign encouragement was given to arts 
 and manufactures in the eastern coun- 
 ties, and some not unimportant modifi- 
 cations of the feudal system took place, 
 by allowing the breaking of entails. 
 
COMPLETION OF THE BUNKEK HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 14? 
 
 These autl other measures, and other 
 occurrences, were making way for a new 
 class of society to emerge, and show it- 
 self, in a military and feudal age; a 
 middle class, between the barons or 
 great landholders and the retainers of 
 the crown, on the one side, and the ten- 
 ants of the crown and barons, and agri- 
 cultural and other laborers, on the otlier 
 Bide. With tlie rise and growth of this 
 new class of society, not only did com- 
 merce and the arts increase, but better 
 education, a greater degree of knowl- 
 edge, juster notions of the true ends of 
 government, and sentiments favorable 
 to civil liberty, began to spread abroad, 
 and become more and more common. 
 But the plants sprmging from these 
 seeds were of slow growth. The char- 
 acter of English society had indeed be- 
 gun to midergo a change ; but changes 
 of national character are ordinarily the 
 work of time. Operative causes were, 
 however, evidently in existence, and 
 sure to produce, ultimately, their proper 
 effect. From the accession of Henry 
 the Seventh to the breaking out of the 
 civil wars, England enjoyed much gi-eater 
 exemption from war, foreig-n and do- 
 mestic, than for a long period before, 
 and during the controversy between the 
 houses of York and Lancaster. These 
 years of peace were favorable to com- 
 merce and the arts. Commerce and the 
 arts augmented general and individual 
 knowledge; and knowledge is the only 
 fountain, both of the love and the prin- 
 ciples of human liberty. 
 
 Other powerful causes soon came into 
 active play. The Reformation of Luther 
 broke out, kindling up the minds of men 
 afresh, leading to new habits of thought, 
 and awakening in individuals energies 
 before unknown even to themselves. The 
 religious controversies of this period 
 changed society, as well as religion; in- 
 deed, it would be easy to prove, if this 
 occasion were proper for it, that they 
 changed society to a considerable ex- 
 tent, where they did not change the re- 
 ligion of the state. They changed man 
 himself, in his modes of thought, his 
 consciousness of his own powers, and 
 his desu-e of intellectual attainment. 
 
 The spirit of commercial and foreign 
 adventure, therefore, on the one hand, 
 which had gained so mucli strength and 
 influence since the time of the discovei^y 
 of America, and, on the other, the asser- 
 tion and maintenance of religious lib- 
 erty, having their source indeed in the 
 Reformation, but continued, diversified, 
 and constantly strengthened by the sub- 
 sequent divisions of sentiment and opin- 
 ion among the Reformers them.selvea, 
 and this love of religious liberty draw- 
 ing after it, or bringing along with it, aa 
 it always does, an ardent devotion to the 
 principle of civil liberty also, w^ere the 
 powerful influences under which charac- 
 ter was formed, and men trained, for the 
 gi-eat work of introducing English civ- 
 ilization, English law, and, what is more 
 than all, Anglo-Saxon blood, into the 
 wilderness of North America. Raleigh 
 and his companions may be considered 
 as the creatures, principally, of the first 
 of these causes. High-spirited, full of 
 the love of personal adventure, excited, 
 too, in some degree, by the hopes of 
 sudden riches from the discovery of 
 mines of the precious metals, and not 
 unwilling to diversify tlie labors of set- 
 tling a colony with occasional cruising 
 against the Spaniards in the West In- 
 dian seas, they crossed and recrossed tlie 
 ocean, with a frequency which surprises 
 us, when we consider the state of navi- 
 gation, and which evinces a most daring 
 spirit. 
 
 The other cause peopled New England. 
 The INIaj-flower sought oui- shores under 
 no high-wrought spirit of conmiercia) 
 adventure, no love of gold, no mixture 
 of purpose warlike or hostile to any hu- 
 man being. Like the dove from the ark, 
 she had put forth only to find rest. Sol- 
 emn supplications on the shore of the 
 sea, in Holland, had invoked for her, 
 at her departure, the blessings of Provi- 
 dence. The stars which guided her were 
 the unobscured constellations of civil and 
 religious liberty. Her deck was the altar 
 of the living God. Fervent prayers on 
 bended knees mingled, morning and 
 evening, with the voices of ocean, and 
 the sighing of the wind in her shrouds. 
 Every prosperous breeze, which, gently 
 
144 
 
 COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 swelling her sails, helped the Pilgrims 
 onward in their course, awoke new an- 
 thems of praise; and when the elements 
 were wrought into fury, neither the tem- 
 pest, tossing their fragile bark like a 
 feather, nor the darkness and howling 
 of the midnight storm, ever disturbed, 
 in man or woman, the firm and settled 
 purpose of their souls, to undergo all, 
 and to do all, that the meekest patience, 
 the boldest resolution, and the highest 
 trust in God, could enable human beings 
 to suffer or to perform. 
 
 Some differences may, doubtless, be 
 traced at this day between the descend- 
 ants of the early colonists of "S'irginia 
 and those of New England, owing to 
 the different influences and different 
 circumstances under which the respec- 
 tive settlements were made; but only 
 enough to create a pleasing variety in 
 the midst of a general family resem- 
 blance. 
 
 " Facies, non omnibus una. 
 Nee diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum." 
 
 But the habits, sentiments, and objects 
 of both soon became modified by local 
 causes, growing out of their condition 
 in the Kew World ; and as this condi- 
 tion was essentially alike in both, and 
 as both at once adopted the same gen- 
 eral rules and principles of English juris- 
 prudence, and became accustomed to the 
 authority of representative bodies, these 
 differences gradually diminished. They 
 disappeared by the progi-ess of time, and 
 ' the influence of intercourse. The neces- 
 sity of some degi"ee of union and co-op- 
 eration to defend themselves against the 
 savage tribes, tended to excite in them 
 mutual respect and regard. They fought 
 together in the wars against France. The 
 gi-eat and common cause of the Revolu- 
 tion bound them to one another by new 
 links of brotherhood ; and at length 
 the present constitution of government 
 united them happily and gloriously, to 
 form the great republic of the world, 
 and bound up their interests and for- 
 tunes, till the whole earth sees that there 
 is now for them, in present possession 
 as well as in future hope, but "One 
 Country, One Constitution, and One 
 Destiny." 
 
 The colonization of the tropical legion, 
 and the whole of the southern parts oi 
 the continent, by Spain and Portugal, 
 was conducted on other principles, un- 
 der the influence of other motives, and 
 followed by far different consequences. 
 From the time of its discovery, the 
 Spanish government pushed fonvard its 
 settlements in America, not only with 
 vigor, but with eagerness ; so that long 
 before the first permanent English set- 
 tlement had been accomplished in what 
 is now the United States, Spain had 
 conquered Mexico, Peru, and Chili, and 
 stretched her power over nearly all the 
 territory she ever acquired on this con- 
 tinent. The rapidity of these conquests 
 is to be ascribed in a great degree to 
 the eagerness, not to say the rapacity, 
 of those numerous bands of adveuturei-s, 
 who were stimulated by individual in- 
 terests and piivate hopes to subdue im- 
 mense regions, and take possession of 
 them in the name of the crown of Spain. 
 The mines of gold and silver were the 
 incitements to these efforts, and accord- 
 ingly settlements were generally made, 
 and Spanish authority established im- 
 mediately on the subjugation of terri- 
 tory, that the native population might 
 be set to work by their new Spanish 
 masters in the mines. From these facts, 
 the love of gold — gold, not produced by 
 industry, nor accumulated by commerce, 
 but gold dug from its native bed in tlie 
 bowels of the earth, and that earth rav- 
 ished from its rightful possessors by ev- 
 ery possible degree of enormity, cruelty, 
 and crime — was long the governing 
 passion in Spanish wars and Spanish 
 settlements in America. Even Colunilius 
 himself did not wholly escape the influ- 
 ence of this base motive. In his early 
 voyages we find him passing from island 
 to island, inquiring eveiywhere for gold; 
 as if God had ojiened the New A\'orld to 
 the knowledge of the Old, only to gratify 
 a passion equally senseless and sordid, 
 and to offer up millions of an unoffend- 
 ing race of men to the destruction of the 
 sword, sharpened both by cruelty and 
 rapacity. And yet Columbus was far 
 above his age and country. Enthusi- 
 astic, indeed, but sober, religious, and 
 
COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 145 
 
 magnanimous; born to great things and 
 capable of high sentiments, as his noble 
 discourse before Ferdinand and Isabella, 
 as well as the wliole liistory of his life, 
 shows. Probably he sacrificed much to 
 the known sentiments of otliers, and ad- 
 dressed to his followers motives likely to 
 influence them. At the same time, it is 
 evident that he himself looked upon the 
 world which he discovered as a world of 
 wealth, all ready to be seized and en- 
 joyed. 
 
 The conquerors and the European 
 settlers of Spanish America were mainly 
 military commandei's and common sol- 
 diers. The monarchy of Spain was not 
 transferred to this hemisphere, but it 
 acted in it, as it acted at home, through 
 its ordinary means, and its true repre- 
 sentative, military force. The robbery 
 and destruction of the native race was 
 the achievement of standing armies, in 
 the right of the king, and by his au- 
 thority, fighting in his name, for the 
 aggrandizement of his power and the ex- 
 tension of his prerogatives, with military 
 ideas under arbitrary maxims, — a por- 
 tion of that dreadful instrumentality by 
 which a perfect despotism governs a 
 people. As there was no liberty in 
 Spain, how could liberty be transmitted 
 to Spanish colonies? 
 
 The colonists of English America 
 were of the people, and a people already 
 free. They were of the middle, indus- 
 trious, and ab-eady prosperous class, the 
 inhabitants of commercial and manu- 
 facturing cities, among whom liberty 
 first revived and respired, after a sleep 
 of a thousand years in the bosom of the 
 Dark Ages. Spain descended on the 
 New World in the armed and terrible 
 image of her monarchy and her soldieiy ; 
 England approached it in the winning 
 and popular garb of personal rights, 
 public protection, and civil freedom. 
 England transplanted liberty to Amer- 
 ica; Spain transplanted power. Eng- 
 land, through the agency of private 
 companies and the efforts of individuals, 
 colonized this part of North America 
 by industrious individuals, making their 
 own way in the wilderness, defending 
 themselves against the savages, recog- 
 
 nizing their right to the soil, and with a 
 general honest purpose of introducing 
 knowledge as well as Christianity among 
 tliem. Spain stooped on South America, 
 like a vulture on its prey. Eveiy thing 
 was force. Territories were acquired by 
 fire and sword. Cities were destroyed 
 by fire and sword. Hundreds of thou- 
 sands of human beings fell by fire and 
 sword. Even conversion to Christianity 
 was attempted by fire and sword. 
 
 Behold, then, fellow-citizens, the dif- 
 ference resulting from the operation of 
 the two princijiles! Here, to-day, on 
 the summit of Bunker Hill, and at the 
 foot of this monument, behold the dif- 
 ference ! I woidd that the fiity thousand 
 voices present could proclaim it with a 
 shout which shoidd be heard over the 
 globe. Our inheritance was of liberty, 
 secured and reg'ulated by law, and en- 
 lightened by religion and knowledge; 
 that of South America was of power, 
 stern, unrelenting, tyrannical, militaiy 
 power. And now look to the conse- 
 quences of the two principles on the 
 general and aggi'egate happiness of the 
 himian race. Behold the results, in all 
 the regions conquered by Cortez and 
 Pizarro, and the contrasted results here. 
 I suppose the territoiy of the United 
 States may amount to one eighth, or 
 one tenth, of that colonized by Spain 
 on this continent; and yet in all that 
 vast region there are but between one 
 and two millions of people of Euro- 
 pean color and European blood, while 
 in the United States there are four- 
 teen millions who rejoice in their de- 
 scent from the people of the more 
 noi'thern part of Europe. 
 
 But we may follow the difference in 
 the original principle of colonization, 
 and in its character and objects, still 
 further. We must look to moral and 
 intellectual residts; we must consider 
 consequences, not only as they show 
 themselves in hastening or retarding the 
 increase of population and the supply of 
 physical wants, but in their civilization, 
 imiirovement, and happiness. We must 
 inquire what progress has been made 
 in the true science of liberty, in the 
 knowledge of the great principles of self- 
 
 10 
 
]46 
 
 COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 government, and in the progress of man, 
 as a social, moral, and religious being. 
 
 I •would not -^Nillingly say any thing 
 on this occasion discouiteous to the new 
 governments founded on the demolition 
 of the power of the Spanish monarchy. 
 They are yet on their trial, and I hope 
 for a favorable result. But truth, sacred 
 truth, and fidelity to the cause of civil 
 liberty, compel me to say, that hitherto 
 they have discovered quite too much of 
 the spirit of that monarchy from which 
 they separated themselves. Quite too 
 frequent resort is made to military force ; 
 and quite too much of the substance of 
 the people is consumed in maintaining 
 armies, not for defence against foi'eign 
 aggi'ession, but for enforcing obedience 
 to domestic authority. Standing armies 
 are the oppressive instruments for gov- 
 erning the people, in the hands of heredi- 
 tary and arbitrary monarchs. A military 
 republic, a government founded on mock 
 elections and supported only by the sword, 
 is a movement indeed, but a retrogi-ade 
 and disastrous movement, from the reg- 
 ular and old-fashioned monarchical sys- 
 tems. If men would enjoy the blessings 
 of republican government, they must gov- 
 ern themselves by reason, by mutual coun- 
 sel and consultation, by a sense and feeling 
 of general interest, and by the acquies- 
 cence of the minority in the will of the 
 majority, properly expressed ; and, above 
 all, the military must be kept, according 
 to the language of our Bill of Riglits, in 
 strict suboi-dination to the civil author- 
 ity. Wherever this lesson is not both 
 learned and practised, there can be no 
 political freedom. Absurd, preposter- 
 ous is it, a scoff and a satire on free 
 forms of constitutional liberty, for 
 flames of government to be prescribed 
 by military leaders, and the right of 
 suffrage to be exercised at the point of 
 the sword. 
 
 Making all allowance for situation 
 and climate, it cannot be doubted by 
 intelligent minds, that the difference 
 now existing between North and South 
 America is justly attributable, in a great 
 degree, to political institutions in the 
 Old World and in the New. And how 
 broad that difference is ! Suppose an 
 
 assembly, in one of the valleys or on Ihe 
 side of one of the mountains of the 
 southern half of the hemisphere, to be 
 held, this day, in the neighborhood of a 
 large city; — what would be the scene 
 presented? Yonder is a volcano, flam- 
 ing and smoking, but shedding no light, 
 moral or intellectual. At its foot is the 
 mine, sometimes yielding, perhaps, large 
 gains to capital, but in which labor ig 
 destined to eternal and unrequited tjil, 
 and followed only by penury and beg. 
 gary. The city is filled with armed 
 men ; not a free people, armed and com- 
 ing forth voluntarily to rejoice in a public 
 festivity, but hireling troops, supported 
 by forced loans, excessive impositions on 
 commerce, or taxes wrung from a half- 
 fed and a half-clothed population. For 
 the great there are palaces covered with 
 gold; for tlie poor there are hovels of 
 the meanest sort. There is an ecclesias- 
 tical hierarchy, enjoying the wealth of 
 princes; but there are no means of edu- 
 cation for the people. Do public im- 
 provements favor intercourse between 
 place and place? So far from this, thu 
 traveller cannot pass from town to town, 
 without danger, every mile, of robbery 
 and assassination. I would not over- 
 charge or exaggerate this picture; but 
 its principal features are all too truly 
 sketched. 
 
 And how does it contrast with the 
 scene now actually before us? Look 
 round upon these fields; they are ver- 
 dant and beautiful, well cultivated, and 
 at this moment loaded with the riches of 
 the early harvest. The hands which till 
 them are tliose of the free owners of 
 the soil, enjoying equal rights, and pro- 
 tected by law from oppression and tyr- 
 anny. Look to the thousand vessels in 
 our sight, filling the harbor, or covering 
 the neighboring sea. They are the 
 vehicles of a profitable commerce, car- 
 ried on by men who know that the profits 
 of their hardy enterprise, when they 
 make them, are their own; and this 
 commerce is encouraged and regulated 
 by wise laws, and defended, when need 
 be, by the valor and jxit riot ism of the 
 country. Look to that fair city, tlie 
 abode of so much diffused wealth. «o 
 
COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 147 
 
 much general happiness and comfort, 
 BO much personal independence, and so 
 much general knowledge, and not un- 
 distinguislird, I may be permitted to 
 add, lor hospitality and social refine- 
 ment. She fears no forced contribu- 
 tions, no siege or sacking from military 
 leaders of rival factions. The hundred 
 temples in which her citizens worship 
 God are i u no danger of .sacrilege. The 
 regular administration of the laws en- 
 counters no obstacle. The long proces- 
 sions of children and youth, which you 
 see this day, issuing by thousands from 
 her free schools, pi'ove the care and 
 anxiety with which a popular govern- 
 ment provides for the education and 
 morals of the people. Everywhere there 
 is order; everywhere there is security. 
 Everywhere the law reaches to the 
 highest and reaches to the lowest, to 
 protect all in their rights, and to re- 
 strain all from wrong; and over all 
 hovers liberty, — that liberty for which 
 our fathers fought and fell on this very 
 spot, with her eye ever watchful, and 
 her eagle wing ever wide outspread. 
 
 The colonies of Spain, from their 
 origin to their end, were subject to the 
 sovereign authority of the motlier coun- 
 try. Their government, as well as their 
 commerce, was a strict home monopoly. 
 If we add to this the established usage 
 of filling important posts in the admin- 
 istration of the colonies exclusively by 
 natives of Old Spain, thus cutting off 
 for ever all hopes of honorable prefer- 
 ment from every man born in the West- 
 ern hemisphere, causes enough rise up 
 before us at once to account fully for 
 the subsequent history and character of 
 these provinces. The viceroys and pro- 
 vincial governors of Spain were never at 
 home in their governments in America. 
 They did not feel that they were of 
 the people whom they governed. Their 
 ofiicial character and employment have 
 a good deal of resemblance to those of 
 the proconsuls of Rome, in Asia, Sicily, 
 and Gaul ; but obviously no resemblance 
 to thoie of Carver and Winthrop, and 
 very little to those of the governors of 
 Virginia after that Colony had estab- 
 lished a popular House of Burgesses. 
 
 The English colonists in America, 
 generally speaking, wei-e men who were 
 seeking new homes in a new world. 
 They biought with them their families 
 and all that was most dear to them. 
 This was especially the case with the 
 colonists of Plymouth and Massachu- 
 setts. Many of them were educated 
 men, and all possessed their full share, 
 according to their social condition, of 
 the knowledge and attainments of that 
 age. The distinctive characteristic of 
 their settlement is the introduction of 
 the civilization of Europe into a wil- 
 derness, without bringing with it the 
 political institutions of Europe. The 
 arts, sciences, and literature of England 
 came over with the settlers. That great 
 portion of the common law which regu- 
 lates tlie social and personal relations and 
 conduct of men, came also. The jury 
 came : the habeas corpus came ; the tes- 
 tamentary power came; and the law of 
 inheritance and descent came also, except 
 that part of it which recognizes the rights 
 of primogeniture, which either did not 
 come at all, or soon gave way to the rule 
 of equal partition of e.states among chil- 
 dren. But the monarchy did not come, 
 nor the aristocracy, nor the church, as 
 an estate of the realm. Political insti- 
 tutions were to be framed anew, such as 
 should be adapted to the state of things. 
 But it could not be doubtful what sliould 
 be the nature and character of these in- 
 stitutions. A general social equality 
 prevailed among the settlers, and an 
 equality of political rights seemed the 
 natural, if not the necessary conse- 
 quence. After forty years of revolution, 
 violence, and war, the people of France 
 have placed at the head of the funda- 
 mental instrument of their government, 
 as the great boon obtained by all their 
 sufferings and sacrifices, the declaration 
 that all Frenchmen are equal before the 
 law. What France has reached only by 
 the expenditure of so much blood and 
 treasure, and the perpetration of so much 
 crime, the English colonists obtained 
 by simply changing their place, carrying 
 with them the intellectual and moral 
 culture of Europe, and the personal and 
 social relations to which they were accus- 
 
148 
 
 COMPLETION OF THE PUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 tomed, but leaving behind their polit- 
 ical institutions. It has been said with 
 much vivacity, that the felicity of the 
 American colonists consisted in their es- 
 cape from the past. This is true so far 
 as respects political establishments, but 
 no further. They brought with them a 
 full portion of all the riches of the past, 
 in science, in art, in morals, religion, 
 and literature. The Bible came with 
 them. And it is not to be doubted, that 
 to the free and universal reading of the 
 Bible, in that age, men were much in- 
 debted for right views of civil libertj-. 
 The Bible is a book of faith, and a 
 book of doctrine, and a book of morals, 
 and a book of religion, of especial reve- 
 lation from God ; but it is also a book 
 which teaches man his own individual 
 responsibility, his own dignity, and his 
 equality with his fellow-man. 
 
 Bacon and Locke, and Shakspeare 
 and Milton, also came with the colonists. 
 It was the object of the first settlers 
 to form new political systems, but all 
 tiiat belonged to cultivated man, to fam- 
 ily, to neigliborhood, to social relations, 
 accompanied them. In the Doric phrase 
 of one of our own historians, " they 
 came to settle on bare creation"; but 
 their settlement in tlie wilderness, never- 
 theless, was not a lodgement of nomadic 
 tribes, a mere resting-place of roaming 
 savages. It was the beginning of a per- 
 manent community, the fixed residence 
 of cultivated men. Kot only was Eng- 
 lish literatui'e read, but English, good 
 Englisli, was spoken and written, before 
 the axe liad made way to let in the sun 
 upon the habitations and fields of Ply- 
 moutli and IMassachusetts. And what- 
 ever may be said to the contrary, a 
 corrf'ct use of the Englisli language is, 
 at tliis day, more general througliuut 
 the United States, than it is throughout 
 England herself. 
 
 But another grand cluiracterislic is, 
 that, in the English colonies, political 
 affairs were left to be managed by the 
 colonists themselves. This is anotiier 
 fact wholly di.stinguishing them in cliar- 
 acter, as it luis distinguished them in 
 fortune, from tlic colonists of Spain. 
 Here lies the foundation of that expe- 
 
 rience in self-government, whicn Las 
 preserved order, and security, and reg- 
 ularity, amidst the play of pop^dar insti- 
 tutions. Home government was the 
 secret of the prosperity of the Xorth 
 American settlements. The more dis- 
 tinguished of the New England colonists, 
 with a most remarkable sagacity and a 
 long-sighted reach into futurity, refused 
 to come to America unless they could 
 bring with them charters providing for 
 the administration of their affairs in 
 this country.! They saw from the first 
 the evils of being governed in the Xuw 
 "World by a power fixed in the Old. 
 Acknowledging the general superiority 
 of the crown, they still insisted on the 
 right of passing local laws, and of local 
 administration. And history teaches us 
 the justice and the value of this deter- 
 mination ill the example of Virginia. 
 The early attempts to settle that Colony 
 failed, sometimes with the most mt-lan- 
 choly and fatal consequences, from want 
 of knowledge, care, and attention on the 
 2^art of those who had tlie charge of 
 their aifairs in England; and it was only 
 after the issuing of the third charter, 
 that its prosperity fairlj- commenced. 
 The cause was, that bj' that tliird 
 charter the people of Virginia, for by 
 this time they deserved to be so called, 
 were allowed to constitute and estab- 
 lish the first popular represenkitive 
 assembly which ever convened on this 
 continent, the Virginia House of Bur- 
 gesses. 
 
 The great elements, then, of the 
 American sj'stera of government, origi- 
 nally introduced by the colonists, and 
 whicli were early in operation, and ready 
 to be developed, more and more, as the 
 progress of events should justify or de- 
 mand, were, — 
 
 Escape from the existing political sys- 
 tems of Europe, including iis religious 
 liieraichios, but the continued possession 
 and enjoyment of its science and arts, 
 its literature, and its manners; 
 
 Home government, or the power of 
 
 1 See file " Hcoords of tlie Conipanv of the 
 JIass;iituisett.« Buy in New Englaiul," as pub- 
 lished in the third volume of the Transactions 
 of the American Autiiiuariaii Society, pp. 47-50. 
 
COMrLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 149 
 
 making in the colony the municipal laws 
 which were to govern it; 
 
 Equality of rights ; 
 
 Representative assemblies, or forms of 
 government founded on popular elec- 
 tioi:s. 
 
 Few topics are more inviting, or more 
 fit for philosophical discussion, than the 
 effect on the happiness of mankind of 
 institutions founded upon these princi- 
 ples; or, in other words, the influence 
 of the New World upon the Old. 
 
 Her obligations to Europe for science 
 and art, laws, literature, and manners, 
 America acknowledges as she ought, 
 with respect and gratitude. The people 
 of the United States, descendants of the 
 English stock, grateful for the treasures 
 of knowledge derived from their English 
 ancestors, admit also, with thanks and 
 filial regard, that among those ancestors, 
 under the culture of Hampden and Syd- 
 ney and other assiduous friends, tliat 
 seed of popular liberty first germinated, 
 ■which on our soil has shot up to its full 
 height, until its branches overshadow 
 all the land. 
 
 But America has not failed to make 
 returns. If she has not wholly cancelled 
 the obligation, or equalled it by others 
 of like weight, she has, at least, made 
 respectable advances towards repaying 
 the debt. And she admits, that, stand- 
 ing in the midst of civilized nations, and 
 in a civilized age, a nation among na- 
 tions, thei"e is a high part which she is 
 expected to act, for the general advance- 
 ment of human interests and human 
 welfare. 
 
 American mines have filled the mints 
 of Europe with the precious metals. 
 The productions of the American soil 
 and climate have poured out their abun- 
 dance of luxuries for the tables of the 
 rich, and of necessaries for the suste- 
 nance of the poor. Birds and animals of 
 beauty and value have been added to the 
 European stocks; and transplantations 
 from the unequalled riches of our forests 
 have mingled themselves profusely with 
 the elms, and ashes, and Druidical oaks 
 of England. 
 
 America has made contributions to 
 
 Euroj^e far more important. Who can 
 estimate the amount, or the value, oi 
 the augmentation of tlie commerce of 
 the world that has resulted from Amer- 
 ica? Who can imagine to himself what 
 would now be the shock to the East- 
 ern Continent, if the Atlantic were no 
 loneer traversnble, or if there were no 
 longer American productions, or Amer- 
 ican markets? 
 
 But America exercises influences, or 
 holds out examples, for the considera- 
 tion of the Old World, of a much 
 higher, because they are of a moral and 
 political character. 
 
 America has furnished to Europe proof 
 of the fact, that popular in.stitntions, 
 founded on equality and the principle of 
 representation, are capable of maintain- 
 ing governments, able to secure the 
 rights of person, property, and reputa- 
 tion. 
 
 America has proved that it is practi 
 cable to elevate the mass of mankind, 
 — that portion which in Europe is 
 called the laboring, or lower class, — to 
 raise them to self-respect, to make them 
 competent to act a part in the great 
 right and great duty of self-government; 
 and she has proved that this may be done 
 by education and the diffusion of knowl- 
 edge. She holds out an example, a thou- 
 sand times more encouraging than ever 
 was presented before, to those nine tenths 
 of the human i-ace who are born without 
 hereditary fortune or hereditary rank. 
 
 America has furnished to the world 
 the character of ^Vashington! And if 
 our American institutions had done 
 nothing else, that alone would have 
 entitled them to the respect of man- 
 kind. 
 
 Washington! "First in war, first 
 in peace, and first in the hearts of his 
 countrymen!" Washington is all our 
 own! The enthusiastic veneration and 
 regard in which the people of the United 
 States hold him, prove them to be wor- 
 thy of such a countryman; while his 
 reputation abroad reflects the highest 
 honor on his countiy. I would cheer- 
 fully put the question to-day to the 
 intelligence of Europe and the world, 
 what character of the century, upon the 
 
150 
 
 COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONTTMENT. 
 
 whole, stands out in the relief of his- 
 tory, most pure, most respectable, most 
 sublime; and I doubt not, that, by a 
 suffrage approaching to unanimity, the 
 answer would b.e Washington! 
 
 'J"he structure now standing before us, 
 by its uprightness, its solidity, its dura- 
 bility, is no unfit emblem of his char- 
 acter. His public virtues and public 
 principles were as firm as the earth on 
 Avjiich it stands; his personal motives, 
 as pure as the serene heaven in which 
 its summit is lost. Hut, indeed, though 
 a fit, it is an inadequate emblem. Tow- 
 ering high above the column which our 
 hands have builded, beheld, not by the 
 inhabitants of a single city or a single 
 State, but by all the families of man, 
 ascends the colossal grandeur of the 
 character and life of Washington. In 
 all the constituents of the one, in all the 
 acts of the other, in all its titles to im- 
 mortal love, admiration, and renown, it 
 is an American production. It is the 
 embodiment and vindication of our 
 Transatlantic liberty. Born upon our 
 soil, of parents also born upon it; never 
 for a moment having had sight of the 
 Old World; instructed, according to the 
 modes of his time, only in the spare, 
 plain, but wholesome elementaiy knowl- 
 edge which our institutions provide for 
 the children of the people; growing up 
 beneath and penetrated by the genuine 
 influences of American society; living 
 from infancy to manhood and age 
 amidst our expanding, but not luxurious 
 civilization ; partaking in our great des- 
 tiny of labor, our long contest with un- 
 reclaimed nature and uncivilized man, 
 our agony of glory, the war of Indepen- 
 dence, our great victory of peace, the 
 formation of the Union, and the es- 
 tablislunent of the Constitution, — he is 
 all, all our own ! Washington is ours. 
 That crowded and glorious life, 
 
 " Wlicre multitudes of virtues passed along, 
 Eadi pressing foremost, in the mighty throng 
 Anildtious to be seen, then making room 
 For greater multitudes that were to come," — 
 
 that life was the life of an American 
 citizen. 
 
 1 rlaim liiiu for America. In 'all the 
 
 perils, i' every darkened moment of thw 
 state, ir. the midst of the reproaches of 
 enemies and the misgiving of friends, I 
 turn to that transcendent name for cour- 
 age and for consolation. To him who 
 denies or doubts whether our fen'id lib- 
 erty can be combined with law, with 
 order, with the security of property, with 
 the pursuits and advancement of happi- 
 ness; to him who denies that our forms 
 of government are capable of producing 
 exaltation of soul, and the passion of 
 true glory; to him who denies that we 
 have contributed any thing to the stock 
 of great lessons and great examples; — 
 to all these I reply by pointing to Wash- 
 ington ! 
 
 And now, friends and fellow-citizens, 
 it is time to bring this discourse to a 
 close. 
 
 We have indulged in gratifying recol- 
 lections of the past, in the prosperity 
 and pleasures of the present, and in high 
 hopes for the future. But let us remem- 
 ber that we have duties and obligations 
 to perform, corresponding to the bless- 
 ings which we enjoy. Let us remember 
 the trust, the sacred trust, attaching to 
 the rich inheritance which we have re- 
 ceived from our fathers. Let us feel our 
 personal responsibility, to the full extent 
 of our power and influence, for the pres- 
 ervation of the principles of civil and 
 religious liberty. And let us remember 
 that it is only religion, and morals, ami 
 knowledge, that can make men respecta- 
 ble and happy, under any form of govern- 
 ment. Let us hold fast the great truth, 
 that communities are responsible, as 
 well as individuals; that no government 
 is respectable, which is not just; that 
 without unspotted purity of public faitli, 
 without sacred public principle, fidelity, 
 and honor, no mere forms of govern- 
 ment, no machinery of laws, can give 
 dignity to political society. In our day 
 and generation let us seek to raise and 
 improve the moral sentiment, so that we 
 may look, not for a degraded, but for 
 an elevated and improved future. And 
 when both wo and our children shall 
 have been consigned to (he house ap- 
 I pointed for all living, may love of coun- 
 
COMPLETION OF THE BUNKER HILL MONUMENT. 
 
 151 
 
 try and pride of country glow with equal 
 fervor among those to whom our names 
 and our blood shall have descended! 
 And then, when lionored and decrepit 
 as:e shall lean against the base of this 
 monument, and troops of ingenuous youth 
 shall be gathered round it, and when 
 
 the one shall speak to the other of its 
 objects, the purposes of its construction, 
 and the great and glorious events with 
 which it is connected, there shall rise 
 from every youthful breast the ejacular- 
 tion, " Thank God, I — I also — am ax 
 American! " 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 Page 139. 
 
 The following description of the Bunker 
 Hill Momiiucnt and Square is from Mr. 
 Frothingham's History of the Siege of Bos- 
 ton, pp. 355, 356. 
 
 "Monument Square is four hundred and 
 seventeen feet from north to south, and four 
 hundred feet from east to west, and contains 
 nearly six acres. It embraces the whole site of 
 the redoubt, and a part of the site of the breast- 
 work. According to the most accurate plan of 
 the town and the battle (Page's), the monument 
 stands where the southwest angle of the redoubt 
 was, and the whole of the redoubt was between 
 the monument and the street that bounds it on 
 the west. The small mound in the northeast 
 comer of the square is supposed to be the re- 
 mains of the breastwork. Warren fell about 
 
 two hundred feet west of the monument. An 
 iron fence encloses the square, and another sur 
 rounds the monument. The square lias en- 
 trances on each of its sides, and at each of its 
 corners, and is surrounded by a walk and rows of 
 trees. 
 
 " The obelisk is thirty feet in diameter at the 
 base, about fifteen feet at the top of the trun- 
 cated part, and was designed to be two hundred 
 and twenty feet high ; but the mortar and the 
 seams between the stones make the precise 
 height two hundred and twenty-one feet. With- 
 in the shaft is a hollow cone, with a spiral stair- 
 way winding round it to its summit, which 
 enters a circular chamber at the top. There are 
 ninety courses of stone in the shaft. — six of 
 them" below the ground, and eighty-four above 
 the ground. The capstone, or apex, Is a single 
 stone four feet square at the base, and three feet 
 six inches in height, weighing two and a half 
 tons." 
 
OUR RELATIONS TO THE SOUTH AMERICAN 
 
 REPUBLICS. 
 
 KXT)-.ACTS FROM THE SPEECH OX " THE PANAMA MISSION," DELIVERED IN 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE ]4th 
 OF APRIL, 1826. 
 
 It has been affirmed, that this meas- 
 ui'e, and the sentiments expressed by the 
 Executive relative to its objects, are an 
 acknowledged departure from the neu- 
 tral policy of the United States. Sir, 
 I deny that there is an acknowledged 
 departure, or any departure at all, from 
 the neutral policy of the country. What 
 do we mean by our neutral policy? Not, 
 I suppose, a blind and stupid indiffer- 
 ence to whatever is passing around us; 
 not a total disregard to approaching 
 events, or approaching evils, till they 
 meet us full in the face. Nor do we 
 mean, by our neutral policy, that we in- 
 tend never to assert our rights by force. 
 No, Sir. AVe mean by our policy of neu- 
 trality, that the great objects of national 
 pursuit with us are connected with peace. 
 We covet no provinces; we desire no con- 
 quests; we entertain no ambitious proj- 
 ects of aggrandizement by war. This is 
 our policy. But it does not follow from 
 this, that we rely less tlian other nations 
 on our own power to vindicate our own 
 rights. We know that the last logic of 
 kings is also our last logic; that our own 
 interests must be defended and main- 
 tained by our own arm ; and that peace or 
 ■war may not always be of our own choos- 
 ing. Our neutral policy, therefore, not 
 only justifies, but requires, our anxious 
 attention to the political events which 
 take place in the world, a skilful percep- 
 tion of their relation to our own concerns, 
 and an early anticipation of their conse- 
 quences, and firm and timely assertion of 
 what we hold to be our own risrhts and 
 
 our own interests. Our neutrality is not 
 a predetermined abstinence, either from 
 remonstrances, or from force. Our neu- 
 tral policy is a policy that protects neu- 
 trality, that defends neutrality, that 
 takes up arms, if need be, for neutral- 
 ity. When it is sard, therefore, that 
 this measure departs from our neutral 
 policy, either that policy, or the measure 
 itself, is misunderstood. It implies either 
 that the object or the tendency of the 
 measure is to involve us in the war of 
 other .states, which I think cannot be 
 shown, or that tlie assertion of our own 
 sentiments, on points affecting deeply 
 our own interests, may place us in a hos- 
 tile attitude toward other states, and 
 that therefore we depart from neutral- 
 ity; whereas the truth is, that the deci- 
 sive assertion and the firm suppoi-t of 
 these sentiments may be most essential 
 to the nwiintenance of neutrality. 
 
 An honorable member fi'om Pennsyl- 
 vania thinks this congress will bring a 
 dark day over the United States. Doubt- 
 less, Sir, it is an interesting moment in 
 our history; but I see no great jiroofs of 
 thick-coming darkness. But the object 
 of the remark seemed to be to show that 
 the President himself saw difficulties on 
 all sides, and, making a choice of evils, 
 preferred rather to send ministers to this 
 congress, than to run the ri.sk of exciting 
 the hostility of the states by refusing to 
 send. In other words, the gentleman 
 wished to prove that tlie President in- 
 tended an alliance ; although such inten- 
 tion is expressly disclaimed. 
 
THE PANAMA MISSION. 
 
 153 
 
 ^luch commentary lias been bestowed 
 on the letters of invitation from the min- 
 isters. 1 shall not go through with ver- 
 bal criticisms on these letters. Their 
 general import is plain enough. I shall 
 not gather togetlier small and minute 
 quotations, taking a sentence hero, a 
 word there, and a syllable in a third 
 place, dovetailing them into the course 
 of remark, till the printed discourse 
 bristles in every line with inverted com- 
 mas. I look to the general tenor of the 
 invitations, and I find that we are asked 
 to take part only in such tilings as con- 
 cern ourselves. I look still more care- 
 fully to the answers, and I see every 
 proper caution and proper g\iard. I look 
 to the message, and I see that nothing is 
 there contemplated likely to involve us 
 in other men's quarrels, or fcliat may 
 justly give offence to anj^ foreign state. 
 "Witli this I am satisfied. 
 
 I must now ask the indulgence of the 
 committee to an important point in the 
 discussion, I mean the declaration of 
 the President in 1823. ^ Xot only as a 
 member of the House, but as a citizen 
 of the country, I have an anxious de- 
 sire that this part of our public history 
 should stand in its proper light. The 
 country has, in my judgment, a very 
 high honor connected with that occur-\ 
 rence, which we may maintain, or which 
 we may sacrifice. I look upon it as a 
 part of its treasures of reputation; and, 
 for one, I intend to guard it. 
 
 1 In the message of President Monroe to 
 Contrress at the commencement of the session 
 of 18'2:^-24, tiie following passage occurs: — 
 "In the wars of the European powers, in mat- 
 ters relating to themselves, we have never 
 taken any part, nor does it comport with our 
 policy 89 to do. It is only when our rights 
 are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we re- 
 sent injuries or make preparations for defence. 
 With the movements in this hemisphere we are 
 of necessity more immediately connected, and 
 by causes wiiich must be obvious to all en- 
 lightened and impartial observers. The politi- 
 cal system of the Allied Powers is essentially 
 different, in this respect, from tliat of America. 
 Thi* difference proceeds from that which exists 
 in their respective governments. And to the 
 defence of our own, which has been achieved 
 by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and 
 matured bv the wisdom of their most enlight- 
 
 Sir, let us recur to the important po- 
 litical events which led to that declara- 
 tion, or accompanied it. In the fall of 
 1822, the allied sovereigns held their 
 congress at ^'erona. The great subject 
 of consideration was the condition of 
 Spain, that country then being unde'- 
 the government of the Cortes. The ques- 
 tion was, whether Ferdinand should be 
 reinstated in all his authority, by the 
 intervention of foreign force. Russia, 
 Prn.ssia, France, and Austria were in- 
 clined to that measure; England dis- 
 sented and piotested ; but the course was 
 agreed on, and France, with the consent 
 of these other Continental powers, took 
 the conduct of the operation into her 
 own hands. In the spring of 1823, a 
 French army was sent into Spain. Its 
 success was complete. The popular gov- 
 ernment was overthrown, and Ferdinand 
 re-established in all his power. This 
 invasion. Sir, was determined on, and 
 undertaken, precisely on the doctrines 
 which the allied monarchs had pro- 
 claimed the year before, at Laybach; 
 that is, that they had a right to interfere 
 in the concerns of another state, and re- 
 form its government, in order to prevent 
 the effects of its bad example; this bad 
 example, be it remembered, always be- 
 ing the example of free government. 
 Now, Sir, acting on this principle of 
 supi)0sed dangerous example, and hav- 
 ing put down the example of the Cortes 
 in Spain, it was natural to inquire with 
 
 ened citizens, and under which we have en 
 joyed such unexampled felicity, this whole 
 nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to 
 candor, and to the amicable relations existing 
 between the United States and those powers, to 
 declare that we should consider any attempt on 
 tlieir part to extend their system to any portion 
 of this heinisi)liere as dangerous to our peace 
 and safety. With the existing cob. nies or de- 
 pendencies of any European power, we have 
 not interfered, and shall not interfere. Rut 
 with the governments who have declared (heir 
 independence and maiiUained it, and whose in- 
 dependence we liave on great consideration and 
 on just principles acknowledged, we could not 
 view any interposition for the purpose of op- 
 pressing them, or controlling in anj* other man- 
 ner their destiny, in any other light than as (he 
 manites(ation of an unfriendly disposition !o 
 ward the United States." 
 
164 
 
 THE ^A^'AMA MISSION. 
 
 what eyes they would look on the colo- 
 nies of Spain, that were following still 
 worse examples. Would King Ferdi- 
 nand and his allies be content with what 
 had been done in Spain itself, or would 
 he solicit their aid, and was it likely 
 they would grant it, to subdue his re- 
 bellious American provinces? 
 
 Sir, it was in this posture of affairs, 
 on an occasion which lias already been 
 alluded to, that I ventured to say, early 
 in the session of December, 1823, that 
 these allied monarchs might possibly 
 turn their attention to America; that 
 America came within their avowed doc- 
 trine, and that her examples might very 
 possibly attract their notice. The doc- 
 trines of Laybach were not limited to 
 nny continent. Spain had colonies in 
 America, and having reformed Spain 
 herself to the true standard, it was not 
 impossible that they might see fit to 
 complete tlie work by reconciling, in 
 their way, the colonies to the mother 
 country. Xow, Sir, it did so happen, 
 that, as soon as the Spanish king was 
 completely re-established, he invited the 
 co-operation of his allies in regard to 
 South America. In the same month of 
 December, of 1823, a formal invitation 
 was addressed by Spain to the courts 
 of St. Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, and 
 Paris, proposing to establish a confer- 
 ence at Paris, in order that the plenipo- 
 tentiaries there assembled might aid 
 Spain in adjusting the affairs of her 
 revolted provinces. These affairs were 
 proposed to be adjusted in such manner 
 as should retain the sovereignty of Spain 
 over them ; and though the co-operation 
 of the allies by force of arms was not 
 directly solicited, such was evidently the 
 object aimed at. The king of Spain, in 
 making this request to the members of 
 the Holy Alliance, argued as it has been 
 seen he might argue. He quoted their 
 own doctrines of Laybach; he pointed 
 out the pernicious example of America; 
 and he reminded them that their success 
 in Spain itself liad paved the way for 
 successful opeiations against the spirit 
 of liberty on this side of the Atlantic. 
 
 'J'he proposed meeting, however, did 
 not take place England had already 
 
 taken a decided course ; for as early as 
 October, Mr. Canning, in a confeience 
 with the French minister in London, 
 informed him distinctly and expressly, 
 that England would consider any foreign 
 interference, by force or by menace, in 
 the dispute between Spain and the colo- 
 nies, as a motive for recognizing the lat- 
 ter without delay. It is probable this 
 determination of the English govern- 
 ment was known here at the commence- 
 ment of the session of Congress ; and it 
 was under these circumstances, it was in 
 this crisis, that !Mr. Monroe's declara- 
 tion was made. It was not then ascer- 
 tained whether a meeting of the Allies 
 would or would not take place, to con- 
 cert with Spain the means of re-estab- 
 lishing her power; but it was plain 
 enough tkey would be pressed by Spain 
 to aid her operations ; and it was plain 
 enough, ahso, that they had no particular 
 liking to what was taking place on this 
 side of the Atlantic, nor any great disin- 
 clination to interfere. This was the pos- 
 ture of affairs; and. Sir, I concur entireh 
 in the sentiment expressed in the resolu- 
 tion of a gentleman from Pennsylvania,^ 
 that this declaration of Mr. Monroe was 
 wise, seasonable, and patriotic. 
 
 It has been said, in the course of this 
 debate, to have been a loose and vague 
 declaration. It was, I believe, suffi- 
 ciently studied. I have understood, 
 from good authority, that it was con- 
 sidered, weighed, and distinctly and 
 decidedly approved, by every one of the 
 President's advisers at that time. Our 
 government could not adopt on that oc- 
 casion precisely the course which Eng- 
 land had taken. England threatened 
 the immediate recognition of the prov- 
 inces, if the Allies should take part 
 with Spain- against them. We liad al- 
 ready recognized them. It remained, 
 therefore, only for our government to 
 say how we should consider a combina- 
 tion of the Allied Powers, to effect ob- 
 jects in America, as affecting ourselves; 
 and the message was intended to say, 
 what it does say, that we sliould regard 
 such combination as dangerous to us. 
 Sir, I agree with those who maintain the 
 
 1 Mr. Markley. 
 
THE PANAMA :\IISRION. 
 
 Ihb 
 
 proposition, and 1 contend against those 
 wlio deny it, that the message did mean 
 sometliing; that it meant much; and I 
 maintain, against both, tliat the declara- 
 tion effected much good, answered the 
 end designed by it, did great honor to 
 the foresight and the spirit of the gov- 
 ernment, and that it cannot now be 
 taJien back, I'etracted, or annulled, with- 
 out disgrace. It met. Sir, with the entire 
 concurrence and the hearty approbation 
 of the country. The tone which it 
 uttered foimd a corresponding response 
 in the breasts of the free people of the 
 United States. That people saw, and 
 they rejoiced to see, that, on a fit occa- 
 sion, our weight had been thrown into 
 the right scale, and that, without de- 
 parting from our duty, we had done 
 something useful, and something effect- 
 ual, for the cause of civil liberty. One 
 general glow of exultation, one uni- 
 versal feeling of the gratified love of 
 liberty, one conscious and proud per- 
 ception of the consideration which the 
 coimtry possessed, and of the respect 
 and honor which belonged to it, per- 
 vaded all bosoms. Possibly the public 
 enthusiasm went too far; it certainly 
 did go far. But, Sii', the sentiment 
 which this declaration inspired was not 
 confined to ourselves. Its force was 
 felt everywhere, by all those who could 
 understand its object and foresee its 
 effect. In that very House of Com- 
 mons of which the gentleman from 
 South Carolina has spoken with such 
 commendation, how was it received? 
 Not only, Sir, with approbation, but, I 
 may say, with no little enthusiasm. 
 While the leading minister^ expressed 
 his entire concurrence in the sentiments 
 and opinions of the American President, 
 his distinguished competitor- in that 
 popular body, less restrained by official 
 decorum, and more at liberty to give 
 utterance to all the feeling of the occa- 
 sion, declared that no event had ever 
 created greater joy, exultation, and grat- 
 itude among all the free men in Europe; 
 that he felt pride in being connected 
 by blood and language with the people 
 of the United States; that the policy 
 1 ilr. Canning. 2 ]\fr. Broufrham. 
 
 disclosed by the message becams a great, 
 a free, and an independent nation ; and 
 that he hoped his own country would 
 be prevented by no mean pride, or 
 paltry jealousy, from following so noblo 
 and glorious an example. 
 
 It is doubtless true, as I took occa- 
 sion to observe the other day, that tliia 
 declaration must be considered as found- 
 ed on our rights, and to spring mainly 
 from a regard to their preservation. It 
 did not commit us, at all events, to take 
 up arms on any indication of hostile 
 feeling by the powers of Europe to- 
 wards South America. If, for ex- 
 ample, all the states of Europe had 
 refused to trade with South America 
 until her states should return to their 
 former allegiance, that would have fur- 
 nished no cause of interference to us. 
 Or if an armament had been furnished 
 by the Allies to act against provinces 
 the most remote from us, as Chili or 
 Buenos Ayres, the distance of the scene 
 of action diminishing our apprehension 
 of danger, and diminishing also our 
 means of effectual interposition, might 
 still have left us to content ourselves 
 with remonstrance. But a very differ- 
 ent case would have arisen, if an army, 
 equipped and maintained by these pow 
 ers, had been landed on the shores of 
 the Gulf of Mexico, and commenced the 
 war in our own immediate neighbor- 
 hood. Such an event might justly be 
 regarded as dangerous to ourselves, 
 and, on that gr-ound, call for decided 
 and immediate interference by us. The 
 sentiments and the policy announced by 
 the declaration, thus understood, weroy' 
 therefore, in strict conformity to our 
 duties and our interest. 
 
 Sir, I look on the message of De- 
 cember, 1823, as forming a bright page 
 in our history. I will help neither to 
 erase it nor tear it out; nor shall it be, 
 by any act of mine, blurred or blotted. 
 It did honor to the sagacity of the gov- 
 ernment, and I will not diminish that 
 honor. It elevated the hopes, and 
 gratified the patriotism, of the people. 
 Over those hopes I will not bring a mil- 
 dew; nor will I put that gratified patri- 
 otism to shame. 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 A DISCOURSE m COMMEMORATION OF THE LIVES AND SERVICES OF JOHN 
 ADAMS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON, DELIVERED IN FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, 
 ON THE 2d of AUGUST, 1826. 
 
 [Since the decease of General Washing- 
 ton, on the 14th of December, 1799, the 
 public mind has never been so powerfully 
 affected in this part of the country by any 
 similar event, as by the death of John 
 Adams, on the 4th" of July, 1826. The 
 news reached Boston in tlie evenincr of that 
 day. The decease of this venerable fellow- 
 citizen must at all times have appealed 
 with much force to the patriotic s3-mpathies 
 of the people of Massachusetts. It ac- 
 quired a singular interest from the year 
 and the day on which it took place ; — the 
 4tli of July of the year completing the half- 
 century from that ever memorable era in 
 the history of this country and the world, 
 the Declaration of Independence; a meas- 
 ure in which Mr Adams himself had taken 
 60 distinguished a part. The emotions of 
 the public were greatly increased by the 
 indications given by Mr. Adams in his last 
 hours, that he was fully aware that the 
 day was the anniversary of Independence, 
 and by his dying allusion to the supposed 
 fact that his colleague, Jefferson, survived 
 liim. When, in the course of a few days, 
 the new^ arrived from Virginia, that he 
 also had departed this life, on the same 
 day and a few hours before Mr. Adams, 
 the sensibility of the community, as of 
 the country at large, was touched beyond 
 rU example. The occurrence was justly 
 deemed without a parallel in history. The 
 various circumstances of association and 
 coincidence which marked tlie characters 
 and careers of these great men, and espe- 
 cially those of their simultaneous decease 
 on the 4tli of July, were dwelt upon with 
 melancholy but untiring interest. Tlie cir- 
 cles of private life, the press, public bodies, 
 and the jiuljiit, were for some time almost 
 engrossed witli the topic ; and solemn rites 
 of commemoration were performed through- 
 out the coimtry. 
 
 An early day was appointed for this 
 purpose by the City Council of Boston. 
 Tlie whole community manifested its sym- 
 
 pathy in the extraordinary event ; and on 
 the 2d of August, 1826, at the request of the 
 municipal authorities, and in the presence 
 of an immense audience, the following Dis- 
 course was delivered in Faneuil Hall.] 
 
 This i.s an iinaccu.stomed spectacle. 
 For the first time, fellow-citizens, badges 
 of mouraing shroud the columns and 
 overhang the arches of this hall. These 
 walls, which were consecrated, so long 
 ago, to the cause of American liberty, 
 which witnessed her infant struggles, 
 and rung with the shouts of her earliest 
 victories, proclaim, now, that distin- 
 guished friends and champions of that 
 great cause have fallen. It is right that 
 it should be thus. The tears which 
 flow, and the honors that are paid, when 
 the founders of the republic die, give 
 hope that the republic itself may be 
 immortal. It is fit that, by public as- 
 sembly and solemn observance, by an- 
 them and bv eulogy, we commemorate 
 the services of national benefactors, 
 extol their virtues, and render thanks 
 to God for eminent ble.«sings, early 
 given and long continued, through their 
 agency, to our favored country. 
 
 ADAMS and JEFFERSOX arc no 
 more; and we are assembled, fellow- 
 citizens, the aged, the middle-aged, and 
 the young, by the spontaneous impulse 
 of all, under the authority of the mu- 
 nicipal government, with the presence of 
 the chief magistrate of the Common- 
 wealth, and others its official represent- 
 atives, tlie University, and the learned 
 societies, to bear our part in those mani- 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 157 
 
 festations of respect aud gratitude which 
 pervade the whole land. Adams and 
 Jkkffksox are no more. On our fifti- 
 eth anniversary, the great day of national 
 jubilee, in the very hour of public re- 
 joicing, in the midst of eclioing and 
 re-echoing voices of thanksgiving, while 
 their own names were on all tongues, 
 they took their flight together to the 
 world of spirits. 
 
 If it be true that no one can safely be 
 pronounced happy while he lives, if that 
 event which terminates life can alone 
 crown its honors and its glory, what 
 felicity is here ! The great epic of their- 
 lives, how happily concluded! Poetry 
 itself has hardly terminated illustrious 
 lives, and finished the career of earthly 
 renown, by such a consummation. If 
 we had the power, we could not wish to 
 reverse this dispensation of the Divine 
 Providence. The great objects of life 
 were accomplished, the drama was ready 
 to be closed. It has closed; our patriots 
 have fallen ; but so fallen, at such age, 
 with such coincidence, on such a day, 
 that we cannot rationally lament that 
 that end has come, which we knew could 
 not be long deferred. 
 
 Xeither of these great men, fellow- 
 citizens, could have died, at any time, 
 without leaving an immense void in our 
 American society. They have been so 
 intimately, and for so long a time, 
 blended with the history of the country, 
 and especially so united, in our thoughts 
 aud recollections, with the events of the 
 Revolution, that the death of either 
 would have touched the chords of public 
 sympathy. We should have felt that 
 one great link, connecting us with former 
 times, was broken; that we had lost 
 something more, as it were, of the pres- 
 ence of the Revolution itself, and of the 
 act of independence, and were driven 
 on, by another great remove from the 
 days of our country's early distinction, 
 to meet posterity, and to mix with the 
 futuie. Like the mariner, whom the 
 currents of the ocean and the winds 
 carry along, till he sees the stars which 
 have directed his course and lighted his 
 pathless way descend, one by one, be- 
 neath the rising horizon, we should have 
 
 felt that the stream of time had borna 
 us onward tiU another great luminary, 
 whose liirht had cheered us and whosa 
 guidance we had followed, had sunk 
 away from our sight. 
 
 But the concurrence of their death en 
 the anniversary of Independence has 
 naturally awakened stronger emotions. 
 Both had been Presidents, both had 
 lived to great age, both were early p.v 
 triots, and both were distinguished and 
 ever honored by their immediate agency 
 in the act of independence. It cannot 
 but seem striking and extraordinary, 
 that these two should live to see the fif- 
 tieth year from the date of that act; 
 that they should complete that year; 
 and that then, on the day which had 
 fast linked for ever their own fame with 
 their country's glory, the heavens should 
 open to receive them both at once. As 
 their lives themselves were the gifts of 
 Providence, who is not willing to recog- 
 nize in their hapjsy termination, as well 
 as in their long continuance, proofs that 
 our country and its benefactors are ob- 
 jects of His care? 
 
 Adams and Jeffkrsox, I have said, 
 are no more. As human beings, indeed, 
 they are no more. They are no more, as 
 in 1776, bold and fearless advocates of 
 independence; no more, as at subsequent 
 periods, the head of the government; no 
 more, as we have recently seen them, 
 aged and venerable objects of admira- 
 tion and regard. They are no more. 
 They are dead. But how little is there 
 of the great and good which can die! 
 To their country they yet live, and live 
 for ever. They live in all tliat perpetu- 
 ates the remembrance of men on earth ; 
 in the recorded proofs of their own great 
 actions, in the offspring of their intel- 
 lect, in the deep-engraved lines of pub- 
 lic gratitude, and in the respect and 
 homage of mankind. They live in their 
 example; and they live, emphatically, 
 and will live, in the influence which 
 their lives and efforts, their principles 
 and opinions, now exercise, and will 
 continue to exercise, on the affairs of 
 men, not only in their own country, but 
 throughout the civilized world. A su- 
 perior and commanding human intellect. 
 
158 
 
 ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 a truly gieai man, wh'.'ii Hoaven vouch- 
 safes so rare a gift, is not a temporary 
 flame, burning brightly for a while, and 
 then giving place to returning darkness. 
 It is rather a spark of fervent heat, as 
 well as radiant light, with power to 
 enkindle the common mass of human 
 mind; so that when it glimmers in its 
 own decay, and finally goes out in death, 
 QO night follows, but it leaves the world 
 all r^ght, all on fire, from the potent con- 
 tact of its own spirit. Bacon died; but 
 the human understanding, roused by the 
 touch of his miraculous wand to a per- 
 ception of the true philosophy and the 
 just mode of inquiring after truth, has 
 kept on its course successfully and glori- 
 ously. Newton died; yet the courses of 
 the spheres are still known, and they 
 yet move on by the laws which he dis- 
 covered, and in the orbits which he saw, 
 and described for them, in the infinity 
 of space. 
 
 No two men now live, fellow-citizens, 
 perhaps it may be doubted whether any 
 two men have ever lived in one age, 
 who, more than those we now commem- 
 orate, have impressed on mankind their 
 own sentiments in regard to politics and 
 government, infused their own opinions 
 more deeply into the opinions of others, 
 or given a more lasting direction to the 
 current of human thought. Their work 
 doth not perish with them. The tree 
 which they assisted to plant will flourish, 
 although they water it and protect it no 
 longer; for it has struck its roots deep, 
 it has sent them to the very centre ; no 
 storm, not of force to burst the orb, can 
 overturn it; its branches spread wide; 
 they stretch their protecting arras broader 
 and broader, and its top is destined to 
 reach the heavens. We are not deceived. 
 There is no delusion here. No age will 
 come in which the American Revolution 
 will appear less than it is, one of the 
 greatest events in human history. No 
 age will come in which it shall cease to 
 be seen and felt, on either continent, 
 tiiat a mighty step, a great advance, not 
 only in American affairs, but in human 
 affairs, was made on the 4th of July, 
 177(1. And no age will come, we trust, 
 so ignorant or so mijust as not to see and 
 
 acknowledge the efficient agency of thos« 
 we now honor in producing that momen- 
 tous event. 
 
 We are not assembled, tlierefore, fel- 
 low-citizens, as men overwhelmed with 
 calamity by the sudden disruption of 
 the ties of friendship or aflection, or as 
 in despair for the republic by the un- 
 timely blighting of its hopes. Death 
 has not surprised us by an unseasonable 
 blow. We have, indeed, seeu the tomb 
 close, but it has closed only over matm-e 
 years, over long-protracted public ser- 
 vice, over the weakness of age, and over 
 life itself only when the ends of living 
 had been fulfilled. These suns, as they 
 rose slowly and steadily, amidst clouds 
 and storms, in their ascendant, so they 
 have not rushed from their meridian to 
 sink suddenly in the west. Like the 
 mildness, the serenity, the continuing 
 benignity of a summer's day, they have 
 gone down with slow-descending, grate- 
 ful, long-lingering light; and now that 
 they are beyond the visible margin of 
 the world, good omens cheer us from 
 "the bright track of their fiery car " ! 
 
 There were many points of similarity 
 in the lives and fortunes of these great 
 men. They belonged to the same pro- 
 fession, and had pursued its studios and 
 its practice, for unequal lengths of time 
 indeed, but with diligence and effect. 
 Both were learned and able lawyers. 
 They were natives and inhabitants, re- 
 spectively, of those two of the Colonies 
 which at the Revolution weje the largest 
 and most powei'ful, and which naturally 
 had a lead in tlie political affairs of the 
 times. \N'hen the Colonies became in 
 some degree united, by the assembling 
 of a general Congress, th^y were brought 
 to act togetlier in its deliberations, not 
 indeed at the same time, but both at 
 early periods. Each had alreaily mani- 
 fested his attachment to the cause of tiie 
 country, as well as his ability to main- 
 tain it, by printed addre.sses, public 
 speeches, extensive correspondence, and 
 whatever other mode could be adopted 
 for the purpose of exposing the en- 
 croachments of tiie British rarli;iment 
 and animating the people to a manly 
 resistance. Both were not only decided, 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFEUSON. 
 
 159 
 
 but early, friends of Tudependeiice. 
 Wliile others yet douhted, they weie 
 resohed; where otliers liesitated, they 
 pressed forward. They were both mem- 
 bers of the committee for preparing the 
 Declaration of Independence, and they 
 constituted the sub-committee appointed 
 by the other members to make the draft. 
 They left their seats in Congress, being 
 called to other public employments, at 
 f;eriods not remote from each other, al- 
 tliough one of them returned to it after- 
 wards for a short time. Neither of them 
 was of the assembly of great men which 
 formed the present Constitution, and 
 neitlier was at any time a member of 
 Congress under its provisions. Both 
 have been public ministers abroad, both 
 Vice-Presidents and both Presidents of 
 the United States. These coincidences 
 are now singularly crowned and com- 
 pleted. They have died together ; and 
 they died on the anniversary of liberty. 
 When many of us wei"e last in this 
 place, fellow-citizens, it was on the day 
 of tliat anniversary. We were met to 
 enjoy the festivities belonging to the 
 occasion, and to manifest our grateful 
 homage to our political fathers. We 
 did not, we could not here, forget our 
 venerable neighbor of Quincy. We 
 knew that we w^ere standing, at a time 
 of high and palmy prosperity, where he 
 had stood in the hour of utmost peril ; 
 that we saw nothing but liberty and 
 security, where he had met the frown 
 of power; that we were enjoying every 
 thing, where he had hazarded every 
 thing; and just and sincere plaudits rose 
 to his name, from the crowds which filled 
 this area, and hung over these galleries. 
 He whose grateful duty it was to speak 
 to us,i on that day, of the virtues of our 
 fathers, had, indeed, admonished us that 
 time and years were about to level his 
 venerable frame with the dust. But he 
 bade us hope that " the sound of a na- 
 tion's joy, rushing from our cities, ring- 
 ing from our valleys, echoing from our 
 hills, might yet break the silence of his 
 aged ear; that the rising blessings of 
 grateful millions might yet visit with glad 
 light his decaying vision." Alas! that 
 1 Hon. Josiah Quincy. 
 
 vision was then closing for ever. Alas I 
 the silence which was then settling oa 
 that aged ear was an everlasting silence I 
 For, lo! in the veiy moment of our fes- 
 tivities, his freed spirit ascended to God 
 who gave it! Human aid and human 
 solace terminate at the grave; or we 
 would gladly liave borne him upward, 
 on a nation's outspread hands; we would 
 have accompanied him, and with the 
 blessings of millions and the prayers of 
 millions, commended him to the Divine 
 favor. 
 
 While still indulging our thoughts, 
 on the coincidence of the death of this 
 venerable man with the anniversary of 
 Indep'endence, we learn that Jefferson, 
 too, has fallen; and that these aged 
 patriots, these illustrious fellow-laborers, 
 have left our world together. May not 
 such events raise the suggestion that they 
 are not undesigned, and that Heaven doea 
 so order things, as sometimes to attract 
 stronfjlv the attention and excite the 
 thoughts of men? The occurrence has 
 added new interest to our anniversary, 
 and will be remembered in all time to 
 come. 
 
 The occasion, fellow-citizens, requires 
 some account of the lives and services of 
 John Adams and Thomas Jeffersox- 
 This duty must necessarily be performed 
 with great brevity, and in tlie discharge 
 of it I shall be obliged to confine myself, 
 principally, to those parts of their his- 
 tory and character which belonged to 
 them as public men. 
 
 JoHX Adams was born at Quincy, 
 then part of the ancient town of Brain- 
 tree, on the loth day of October (old 
 style), 1735. He was a descendant of 
 the Puritans, his ancestors having early 
 emigrated from England, and settled ia 
 Massachusetts. Discovering in child- 
 hood a strong love of reading and of 
 knowledge, together with marks of great 
 strength and activity of mind, proper 
 care was taken by his worthy father to 
 provide for his education. He pursued 
 his youthfid studies in Braintree, under 
 Mr. Marsh, a teacher who.se fortune it 
 was tliat Josiah Quincy, Jr., as well a.s 
 the subject of these remarks, should 
 
ItJO 
 
 ADAMS A^'D JEFFERSON. 
 
 receive from him his instruction in the 
 rudiments of classical literature. Hav- 
 ing been admitted, in 1751, a member 
 of Harvard College, Mr. Adams was 
 graduated, in course, in 1755; and on the 
 catalogue of that institution, his name, 
 at the time of his death, was second 
 among the living Alumni, being preced- 
 ed only by that of the venerable Holy- 
 oke. With what degree of reputation 
 he left the University is not now precisely 
 known. We know only that he was dis- 
 tinguished in a class which numbered 
 Locke and Hemmenway among its mem- 
 bers. Choosing the law for his profes- 
 sion, he commenced and prosecuted its 
 studies at Worcester, under the direction 
 of Samuel Putnam, a gentleman whom 
 he has himself described as an acute 
 man, an able and learned lawyer, and 
 as being in large professional practice 
 at that time. In 1758 he was admitted 
 to the bar, and entered upon the practice 
 of tlie law in Braintree. He is under- 
 stood to have made his first considerable 
 effort, or to have attained his first signal 
 success, at Plymouth, on one of those 
 occasions which furnish the earliest op- 
 portunity for distinction to many young 
 men of the profession, a jury trial, and 
 a criminal cause. His business natu- 
 rally grew with his reputation, and his 
 residence in the vicinity afforded the 
 opportunity, as his growing eminence 
 gave the power, of entering on a larger 
 field of practice in the capital. In 1706 
 he removed his residence to Boston, still 
 continuing his attendance on the neigh- 
 boring circuits, and not unfrequently 
 called to remote parts of the Province. 
 In 1770 his professional firmness was 
 broudit to a test of some severitv, on 
 the application of the British officers 
 and soldiers to imdertake their defence, 
 on the trial of the indictments found 
 ajiainst them on account of the trans- 
 actions of the memorable 5th of March. 
 He seems to have thought, on this occa- 
 sion, that a man can no more abandon 
 the proper duties of his profession, than 
 he can abandon other duties. The event 
 proved, tliat, as he judged well for his 
 own reputation, so, too, he judged well 
 for the interest and permanent fame of 
 
 his country. The result of that trial 
 proved, that, notwitlistanding the high 
 degree of excitement then existing iu 
 consequence of the measures of the Brit- 
 ish government, a jury of Massachusetts 
 would not deprive the most reckless 
 enemies, even the officers of that stand- 
 ing army quartered among them, which 
 they so perfectly abhorred, of any part 
 of that protection which the law, in its 
 mildest and most indulgent interpreta- 
 tion, affords to persons accused of crimes. 
 Without following Mr. Adams's pro- 
 fessional course further, suffice it to say, 
 that on the first establishment of the 
 judicial tribunals under the authority of 
 the State, in 1776, he received an offer 
 of the high and responsible station of 
 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
 Massachusetts. But he was destined 
 for another and a different career. 
 From early life the bent of his mind 
 was toward politics ; a propensity which 
 the state of the times, if it did not 
 create, doubtless very much strength- 
 ened. Public subjects must have occu- 
 pied the thoughts and filled up the con- 
 versation in the circles in which he then 
 moved; and the interesting questions at 
 that time just arising could not but 
 seize on a mind like his, ardent, san- 
 guine, and patriotic. A letter, fortu- 
 nately preserved, written by him at 
 Worcester, so early as the Tith of Oc- 
 tober, 1755, is a proof of very compre- 
 hensive views, and uncommon depth of 
 reflection, in a young man not yet quite 
 twenty. In this letter he predicted the 
 transfer of power, and the establishment 
 of a new seat of emjnre in America; he 
 predicted, also, the increase of popula- 
 tion in tlie Colonies; and anticipated 
 their naval distinction, and foretold that 
 all Europe combined could not subdue 
 them. All this is said, not on a public 
 occasion or for effect, but in the style of 
 sober and friendly con-espondence, as 
 the result of his own thoughts. " I 
 sometimes retire," said he, at the close 
 of the letter, "and, laying things to- 
 gethei-, form some reflections pleasing 
 to myself. The produce of one of these 
 reveries you have read above." This 
 prognostication so early in his own life, 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 161 
 
 JO early in the history of the country, 
 ■>t independence, of vast increase of 
 numbers, of naval force, of such aug- 
 in«mted power as might defy all Europe, 
 Is remarkable. It is more remarkable 
 th it its author should live to see ful- 
 niJod to the letter what could have 
 seemed to others, at tlie time, but the 
 extravagance of youthful fancy. His 
 earJiest political feelings were thus 
 strongly American, and from this ar- 
 dent attachment to his native soil he 
 never departed. 
 
 V.liile still living at Quincy, and at 
 the age of twenty-four, Mr. Adams was 
 preiient, in this town, at the argument 
 before the Supreme Court respecting 
 Writs of Assistiince, and heard the cele- 
 brated and patriotic speech of James 
 Otis. Unquestionably, that was a mas- 
 terly perfoi'mance. No flighty declama- 
 tion about liberty, no superficial discus- 
 sion of popular topics, it was a learned, 
 penetrating, convincing, constitutional 
 argument, expressed in a strain of high 
 t nd resolute patriotism. He grasped 
 t.ie question then pending between Eng- 
 land and her Colonies with the strength 
 of a lion; and if he sometimes sported, 
 it was only because the lion himself is 
 sometimes playful. Its success appears 
 to have been as great as its merits, and its 
 impression was widely felt. Mr. Adams 
 himself seems never to have lost the 
 feeling it produced, and to have enter- 
 tained constantly the fullest conviction 
 of its important effects. "I do say," 
 he observes, " in the most solemn man- 
 ner, that Mr. Otis's Oration against 
 Writs of Assistance breathed into this 
 nation the breath of life." ^ 
 
 In 1705 jMr. Adams laid before the 
 
 1 Nearly all that was known of this cele- 
 brated argument, at the time the present Dis- 
 CJurse was delivered, was derived from the 
 recollections of John Adams, as preserved in 
 Minot's History of Massachusetts, Vol. II. p. 
 91. Sen Life and Works of John Adams, Vol. 
 II. p. 124, published in the course of the past 
 year (1850), in the Appendix to which, p. 521, 
 will be found a paper hitherto unpublished, con- 
 taining notes of the argument of Otis, "which 
 seera to be the foundation of the sketch pub- 
 lished by Minot." Tudor's Life of James Otis, 
 p. 61. 
 
 public, anonymously, a series of essays, 
 afterwards collected in a volume in Lou- 
 don, under the title of " A Dissertation 
 on the C'auon and Feudal Law." '■^ The 
 object of this work was to .show that 
 our New England ancestors, in con.sent- 
 ing to exile themselves from their native 
 land, were actuated mainly by the desire 
 of delivering themselves from the power 
 of the hierarchy, and from the monarch- 
 ical and aristocratical systems of tlie 
 other continent; and to make this truth 
 bear with effect on the politics of the 
 times. Its tone is uncommonly bold 
 and animated for that period. He calla 
 on the people, not only to defend, but to 
 study and understand, their rights and 
 privileges; urges earnestly the necessity 
 of diffusing general knowledge; invokes 
 the clergy and the bar, the colleges and 
 academies, and all others who have the 
 ability and the means to expose the in- 
 sidious designs of arbitrary power, to 
 resist its approaches, and to be per- 
 suaded that there is a settled design 
 on foot to enslave all America. " He 
 it remembered," says the author, "that 
 liberty must, at all hazards, be support- 
 ed. We have a right to it, derived from 
 our Maker. But if we had not, our fa- 
 thers have earned and bought it for us, at. 
 the expense of their ease, their estates, 
 their pleasui'e, and their blood. And 
 liberty cannot be preserved without a- 
 general knowledge among the people, 
 who have a right, from the frame of" 
 their nature, to knowledge, as their- 
 great Creator, who does nothing in vain, 
 has ffiven them understandincfs and a; 
 desire to know. But, besides this, they 
 have a right, an indisputable unaliena- 
 ble, indefeasible, divine right, to that, 
 most dreaded and envied kind of knowl- 
 edge, I mean of the characters and con- 
 duct of their rulers. Rulers are no more 
 than attorneys, agents, and trustees for 
 the people; and if the cause, the inter- 
 est and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or 
 wantonly trifled away, the people have 
 a right to revoke the authority that they 
 themselves have deputed, and to consti- 
 
 2 See Life and Works of John .\dnnis, Vol. 
 II. p. 150, Vol III p. 447. ajid North Aniericta 
 Review, Vol. LXXI. p. 430. 
 
 11 
 
162 
 
 ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 tute abler and better agents, attorneys, 
 and trustees." 
 
 The citizens of this town conferred 
 on Mr. Adams his first political distinc- 
 tion, and clothed him with his first po- 
 litical trust, by electing him one of tlieir 
 representatives, in 1770. Before this 
 time he had become extensively known 
 throughout the Province, as well by 
 the part he had acted in relation to 
 public affairs, as by the exercise of his 
 professional ability. He was among 
 those who took the deepest interest in 
 the controversy with England, and, 
 whether in or out of the legislature, 
 his time and talents were alike devoted 
 to the cause. In the years 1773 and 
 1774 he was chosen a Councillor by the 
 members of the General Court, but re- 
 jected by Governor Hutchinson in the 
 former of those years, and by Governor 
 Gage in the latter. 
 
 The time was now at hand, however, 
 when the affairs of the Colonies urgent- 
 ly demanded united counsels throughout 
 the countr}-. An open rupture with the 
 parent state appeared inevitable, and it 
 was but the dictate of prudence that 
 those who were united by a common in- 
 terest and a common danger should pro- 
 tect that interest and guard against that 
 danger by united efforts. A general 
 Congress of Delegates from all the Colo- 
 nies having been proposed and agreed 
 to, the House of Representatives, on 
 the 17th of June, 1774, elected James 
 Bowdoin, Thomas Gushing, Samuel 
 Adams, John Adams, and Robert Treat 
 Paine, delegates from Massachusetts. 
 This appointment was made at Salem, 
 where the General Court had been con- 
 vened by Governor Gage, in the last 
 hour of the existence of a House of 
 Representatives under the Provincial 
 Charter. Wliile engaged in this im- 
 portant business, the Governor, having 
 been informed of what wiia passing, .sent 
 liis secretary with a message dissolving 
 the General Court. The .secretary, find- 
 ing the door locked, directed the mes- 
 senger to go in and inform the Speaker 
 that the secretary was at the door with 
 a message from tlie Governor. The mes- 
 senger returned, and informed the sec- 
 
 retary that the orders of the House were 
 that the doors sliould be kept fast; 
 whereupon the secretary soon after read 
 upon the stairs a proclamation dissolv- 
 ing the General Court. Thus termi- 
 nated, for ever, the actual exercise of the 
 political power of England in or over 
 ^lassachusetts. The four last-named 
 delegates accepted their appointments, 
 and took their seats in Congiess the 
 first day of its meeting, the 5th of Sep* 
 tember, 1774, in Philadelphia. 
 
 The proceedings of the first Congiess 
 are well known, and have been univer- 
 sally admired. It is in vain that we 
 would look for superior proofs of wis- 
 dom, talent, and patriotism. Lord Chat- 
 ham said, that, for himself, he must 
 declare that he had studied and admired 
 the free states of antiquity, the master 
 states of the world, but that for solidity 
 of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wis- 
 dom of conclusion, no body of men could 
 stand in preference to this Congress. It 
 is hardly inferior praise to say, that no 
 production of that great man himself 
 can be pronounced superior to several of 
 the papers published as the pi'oceedings 
 of this most able, most firm, most patri- 
 otic assembly. There is, indeed, noth- 
 ing superior to them in the range of 
 political disquisition. They not only 
 embrace, illustrate, and enforce every 
 thing which political philosophy, the 
 love of liberty, and the spirit of free 
 inquiry had antecedently produced, but 
 they add new and striking views of 
 theii' own, and apply the whole, with 
 irresistible force, in support of Uie cause 
 which had drawn them together. 
 
 Mr. Adams was a constant attendaii^ 
 on the deliberations of this body, and 
 bore an active part in its im]tortant 
 measures. He was of the coinniiltee to 
 state the rights of the Colonies, and of 
 that also which reported the Address to 
 the King. 
 
 As it was in the Continental Congress, 
 fellow-citizens, that those whose deaths 
 have given rise to tiiis occasion were first 
 brought together, and called upon to 
 unite their industry and their ability in 
 the service of the country, let us now 
 turn to the other of these distinguished 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 163 
 
 men, and take a brief notice of his life 
 op to tlie period when he appeared within 
 the walls of Congress. 
 
 Thomas Jefferson, descended from 
 ancestors who had been settled in Vir- 
 ginia for some generations, was born 
 near the spot on which he died, in the 
 county of Albemarle, on tlie 2d of April 
 (old stylf ), 1743. Ilis youthful studies 
 were pursued in the neighborhood of his 
 father's residence until he was removed 
 to the College of William and ^laiy, the 
 highest honors of which he in due time 
 received. Ila* :ng left the College with 
 reputation, he applied himself to the 
 study of ihe law under the tuition of 
 George Wythe, one of the highest judi- 
 cial names of which that State can boast. 
 At an early age he was elected a member 
 of the legislature, in which he had nr> 
 sooner appeared than he distinguished 
 himself by knowledge, capacity, and 
 promptitude. 
 
 ^Ir. Jefferson appears to have been 
 imbued with an early love of letters and 
 science, and to have cherished a strong 
 disposition to pursue these objects. To 
 the physical sciences, especially, and to 
 ancient classic literature, he is under- 
 stood to have had a warm attachment, 
 and never entirely to have lost sight of 
 them in the midst of the busiest occu- 
 pations. But the times were times for 
 action, rather than for contemplation. 
 The country was to be defended, and to 
 be saved, before it could be enjoyed. 
 Philosophic leisure and literary pursuits, 
 and even the objects of professional at- 
 tention, were all necessarily postponed 
 to the urgent calls of the public service. 
 The exigency of the country made the 
 same demand on Mr. Jefferson that it 
 made on others who had the ability and 
 the disposition to serve it; and he obeyed 
 the call; thinking and feeling in this 
 respect with the great Roman orator: 
 " Quis enim est tam cupidus in perspi- 
 cienda cognoscendaque rerdra natura, 
 ut, si ei tractanti contemplantique res 
 cognitione dignissimas subito sit alla- 
 tum periculum discrimenque patria?, cui 
 subvenire opitularique possit, non ilia 
 omnia relinquat atque abjiciat, etiara si 
 
 dinumerare se Stellas, aut metiri mundi 
 magnitudinem posse arbitretur? " ^ 
 
 Entering with all his heart into the 
 cause of liberty, his ability, patriotism, 
 and power with the pen naturally drew 
 upon him a large participation in the 
 most important concerns. Wherever he 
 was, there was found a soul devoted to 
 the rause, power to defend and maintain 
 it, and willingness to incur all its haz- 
 ards. Iv 1774 he published a " Summary 
 View of the Rights of British America," 
 a valuable production among those in- 
 tended to show the dangers whicli threat- 
 ened the liberties of the country, and to 
 encourage the people in their defence 
 In June, 1775, he was elected a member 
 of the Continental Congress, as succes- 
 sor to Peyton Randolph, who had re- 
 signed his place on account of ill health, 
 and took his seat in that body on the 
 21st of the same month. 
 
 And now, fellow-citizens, without pur- 
 suing the biography of these illustrious 
 men further, for the present, let us turn 
 our attention to the most prominent act 
 of their lives, their participation in the 
 Declaration of Independence. 
 
 Preparatory to the introduction of that 
 important measure, a committee, at the 
 head of which was Mr. Adams, had 
 reported a resolution, which Congress 
 adopted on the lOtli of May, recom- 
 mending, in substance, to all the Colo 
 nies which had not already established 
 governments suited to the exigencies of 
 their affairs, to adopt such government as 
 ivould, in the opinion of the representatives 
 of the people, best conduce to the happi- 
 ness and safety of their constituents in par- 
 ticidar, and America in general. 
 
 This significant vote was soon fol- 
 lowed by the direct proposition which 
 Richard Henry Lee had the honor to 
 submit to Congress, by resolution, on 
 the 7th day of June. The publLshed 
 journal does not expressly state it, but 
 there is no doubt, I suppose, that this 
 resolution was in the same words, when 
 originally submitted by Mr. Lee, as 
 when finally passed. Having been dis- 
 cussed on Saturday, the 8tli, and !Mou- 
 day, the 10th of June, this resolution 
 1 Cicero de Ofliciis, Lib. I. § 43. 
 
164 
 
 ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 was on the last-mentioned day postponed 
 for further consideration to the first day 
 of July; and at the same time it was 
 voted, that a committee be appointed to 
 prepare a Declaration to the effect of the 
 lesolution. This committee was elected 
 by ballot, on the following day, and con- 
 sisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, 
 Betijamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and 
 Ilobert R. Livingston. 
 
 It is usual, when committees are 
 elected by ballot, that their members 
 should be arranged in order, according 
 to the number of votes which each has 
 received. Mr. Jefferson, therefore, had 
 received the highest, and 'Mr. Adams 
 the next highest number of votes. The 
 difference is said to have been but of 
 a single vote. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. 
 Adams, standing thus at the head of the 
 committee, were requested by the other 
 members to act as a subcommittee to 
 prepare the draft; and ;Mr. Jefferson 
 drew up the paper. The original draft, 
 as brought by him from his study, and 
 submitted to the other members of the 
 committee, with interlineations in the 
 handwriting of Dr. Franklin, and others 
 in that of i\lr. Adams, was in Mr. Jeffer- 
 son's possession at the time of his death. ^ 
 The merit of this paper is Mr. Jeffer- 
 son's. Some changes were made in it at 
 the suggestion of other members of the 
 committee, and others by Congress while 
 it was under discussion. But none of 
 them altered the tone, the frame, tlie ar- 
 rangement, or the general character of 
 the instrument. As a composition, the 
 Declaration is Mr. Jefferson's. It is the 
 production of his mind, and tlie liigh 
 honor of it belongs to him, clearly and 
 absolutely. 
 
 It has sometimes been said, as if it 
 were a derogation from the merits of this 
 paper, that it contains nothing new; 
 that it only states grounds of proceed- 
 ing, and presses topics of argument, 
 
 1 A fac-simile of tliis ever-memorable state 
 paper, as dratted by Mr. Jefferson, with the iii- 
 terliiitiitions alluded to in the text, is contained 
 in Mr. .K-ffersiin's Writings, Vol. I. p. 146. See, 
 also, in reference to 'he history of the Declara- 
 tion, the Life and Works of John Adiir.4 
 Vol II. p. 512 et ic^. 
 
 which had often been stated and presses 
 before. But it was not the object of the 
 Declaration to produce any thing new. 
 It was not to invent reasons for inde- 
 pendence, but to state those which gov- 
 erned the Congress. For great and 
 sufficient causes, it was proposed to 
 declare independence ; and the proj er 
 business of the paper to be drawn was 
 to set forth those causes, and justify the 
 authors of the measure, in any event of 
 fortune, to the country and to posterity. 
 The cause of American independence, 
 moreover, was now to be presented to 
 the world in such manner, if it might so 
 be, as to engage its sympathy, to com- 
 mand its respect, to attract its admira- 
 tion ; and in an assembly of most able 
 and distinguished men, Thomas Jkf- 
 FEUSON had the high honor of being tlie 
 selected advocate of this cause. To say 
 that he performed his great work well, 
 would be doing him injustice. To say 
 that he did excellently well, admirably 
 well, would be inadequate and halting 
 praise. Let us rather say, that he .so 
 discharged the duty assigned him, tliat 
 all Americans may well rejoice tliat the 
 work of drawing the title-deed of their 
 liberties devolved upon him. 
 
 Witli all its merits, there are those 
 who have thought that there was one 
 thing in the Declaration to be regretted; 
 and tliat is. the asperity and apparent 
 anger with which it speaks of the person 
 of the king; the industrious ability with 
 which it accumulates and charges upon 
 him all the injuries which the Colonies 
 had suffered from the mother country. 
 Possibly some degree of injustice, now 
 or hereafter, at home or abroad, may be 
 done to the character of Mr. Jefferson, 
 if this part of the Declaration be not 
 placed in its proper light. Anger or re- 
 sentment, certainly nnich less personal 
 reproach and invective, could not prop- 
 erly find place in a composition of such 
 high dignity, and of such lofty and per- 
 manent character. 
 
 A single reflection on the original 
 ground of disptite between England and 
 the Colonies is sufficient to remove any 
 unfavorable impression in this respect. 
 
 The iuhabitants of all the Colonies, 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 16o 
 
 wliile Colonios, admitted themselves 
 bound by their allegiance to the king; 
 but they disclaimed altogether the au- 
 thority of Parliament; holding them- 
 selves, in this respect, to resemble the 
 condition of Scotland and Ireland before 
 the respective unions of those kingdoms 
 with England, when they acknowledged 
 allegiance to the same king, but had 
 each its separate legislature. The tie, 
 tiierefore, which our Revolution was to 
 break did not subsist between us and 
 the British Parliament, or between us 
 and the British government in the ag- 
 gregate, but directly between us and the 
 king himself. The Colonies had never 
 admitted themselves subject to Parlia- 
 ment. That was precisely the point of 
 the original controversy. They had uni- 
 formly denied that Parliament had au- 
 thority to make laws for them. There 
 was, therefore, no subjection to Parlia- 
 ment to be thrown off.^ But allegiance 
 to the king did exist, and had been 
 uniformly acknowledged; and down to 
 1775 the most solemn assurances had 
 been given that it was not intended to 
 break that allegiance, or to throw it off. 
 Therefore, as the direct object and only 
 effect of the Declaration, according to 
 the principles on which the controversy 
 had been maintained on our part, were 
 to sever the tie of allegiance which 
 bound us to the king, it was properly 
 and necessarily founded on acts of the 
 
 1 This question, of the power of Parliament 
 over the Colonies, was discussed, with singular 
 ability, by Governor Hutchinson on the one side, 
 and the House of Kepresentatives of Massachu- 
 setts on the other, in 1773. The argument of the 
 House is in the form of an answer to the Gov- 
 ernor's Message, and was reported by Jfr. Sam- 
 uel Adams, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Hawley, Mr. 
 Bowers, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Foster, Mr. Phillips, 
 jnd Mr. Thayer. As the power of the Parlia- 
 ment hai been acknowledged, so far at least as 
 to affect us by laws of trade, it was not easy to 
 settle the line of distinction. It was thought, 
 howevei , to be very clear, that the charters of 
 the Coliiuies had exempted them from the gen- 
 eral l-igitilation of the British Parliament. See 
 Massachusetts State Papers, p. 351. The impor- 
 tant assistance rendered by John Adams in the 
 preparation of the answer of the House to the 
 Message of the Governor may be learned from 
 the Life and Works of John Adams, Vol. II. 
 p. 311 et teq. 
 
 crown itself, as its justifying causes. 
 Parliament is not so much as mentioned 
 in the whole instrument. When odious 
 and oppressive acts are referred to, it ia 
 done by charging the king with confed- 
 erating with others " in pretended acta 
 of legislation"; the object being con- 
 stantly to hold the king himself directly 
 responsible for those measures which 
 were the grounds of separation. Even 
 the precedent of the English Revolution 
 was not overlooked, and in this case, as 
 well as in that, occasion was found to 
 say that the king had abdicated the gov- 
 ernment. Consistency with the princi- 
 ples upon which resistance began, and 
 with all the previous state papers issued 
 by Congress, required that the Declara- 
 tion should be bottomed on the misgov- 
 ernnient of the king; and therefore it 
 was properly fi-amed with that aim and 
 to that end. The king was known, in- 
 deed, to have acted, as in other cases, by 
 his ministers, and with his Parliament; 
 but as our ancestors had never admitted 
 themselves subject either to ministers or 
 to Parliament, there were no reasons to 
 be given for now refusing obedience to 
 their authority. This clear and obvious 
 necessity of founding the Declaration on 
 the misconduct of the king himself, gives 
 to that instrument its personal applica- 
 tion, and its character of direct and 
 pointed accusation. 
 
 The Declaration having been reported 
 to Congress by the committee, the reso- 
 lution itself was taken up and debated 
 on the first day of July, and again on the 
 second, on which last day it was agreed 
 to and adopted, in these words: — 
 
 " Resolved, That these united Colonies 
 are, and of right ought to be, free and 
 independent States; that they are ab- 
 solved from all allegiance to the British 
 crown, and that all political connection 
 between them and the state of Great 
 Britain is, and ought to be, totally dis- 
 solved." 
 
 Having thus passed the main resolu- 
 tion, Congress proceeded to consider the 
 reported draught of the Declaration. It 
 was discussed on the second, and third, 
 and FOURTH days of the month, in com- 
 mittee of ths whole; and ou the last of 
 
166 
 
 ADAMS AND JEFFERSU^. 
 
 those days, being repoited from that 
 committee, it received the final approba- 
 tion and sanction of Congress. It was 
 ordered, at the same time, that copies be 
 sent to the several States, and that it be 
 proclaimed at the head of the army. The 
 Declaration thus published did not bear 
 the names of the members, for as yet it 
 had not been signed by them. It was 
 authenticated, like other papers of the 
 Congress, by the signatures of the Pres- 
 ident and Secretary. On the 19th of 
 July, as appears by the secret journal, 
 Congress " Resolced, That the Declara- 
 tion, passed on the fourth, be fairly en- 
 grossed on parchment, with the title and 
 style of ' The un.animous Declara- 
 tion OF THE ThIHTEEN UnXTED StATES 
 
 OF America ' ; and that the same, when 
 engrossed, be signed by every member of 
 Congress." And on the second day 
 OF August following, "the Declara- 
 tion, being engrossed and compared at 
 the table, was signed by the members." 
 So that it happens, fellow-citizens, that 
 ■we pay these honors to their memory on 
 the anniversary of that day (•2d of Au- 
 gust) on which these great men actually 
 signed their names to the Declaration. 
 The Declaration was thus made, that is, 
 it passed and was adopted as an act of 
 Congress, on the fourth of July; it was 
 tlien signed, and certified by the Presi- 
 dent and Secretary, like other acts. The 
 Fourth of July, therefore, is the an- 
 niversary OF THE Declaration. But 
 the signatures of the members present 
 were made to it, being then engrossed 
 on parchment, on the second day of 
 August. Absent members afterwards 
 signed, as they came in; and indeed it 
 bears the names of some who were not 
 chosen membei-s of Congress until after 
 the fourth of July. The interest be- 
 longing to tlie subject will be sufiicient, 
 1 hope, to justify these details.^ 
 
 Tlie Congress of the Kevolution, fel- 
 low-citizens, sat with closed doors, and 
 no report of its debates was ever made. 
 The discussion, therefore, which accom- 
 
 1 The official copy of the Declaration, as en- 
 grossed and siciied by the members of Congress, 
 is framed and preserved in the Hall over the 
 Pateut-Oflice at Washiuyton. 
 
 panied this great measure, has never 
 been preserved, except in memoi-y and 
 by tradition. But it is, I believe, doing 
 no injustice to others to say, that the 
 general opinion was, and uniformly has 
 been, that in debate, on the side of in- 
 dependence, John Adams had no equal. 
 The great author of the Declaration him- 
 self has expressed that opinion uniform- 
 ly and strongly. " John Adams," said 
 he, in the hearing of him who has now 
 the honor to address you, " John Adams 
 was om* colossus on the floor. Xot grace- 
 ful, not elegant, not always fluent, in 
 his public addresses, he yet came out 
 with a power, both of thought and of 
 expression, which moved us from our 
 seats." 
 
 For the part which he was here to 
 perform, Mr. Adams doubtless w;is emi- 
 nently fitted. He possessed a bold spirit, 
 whicli disregarded danger, and a san- 
 guine reliance on the goodness of the 
 cause, and the virtues of the people, 
 which led him to overlook all obstacles. 
 His character, too, had been formed in 
 troubled times. He had been rocked in 
 the early storms of the controversy, and 
 had acquired a decision and a hardihood 
 proportioned to the severity of the disci- 
 pline which he had undergone. 
 
 He not only loved the American cause 
 devoutly, but had studied and under- 
 stood it. It was all familiar to him. 
 He had tried his powers on the ques- 
 tions which it involved, often and in 
 various ways; and had brought to their 
 consideration wliatever of argument or 
 illustration the history of his own coun- 
 try, the history of P2ngland, or the stores 
 of ancient or of legal learning, could fur- 
 nish. Every grievance enumerated ia 
 the long catalogue of the Declaration 
 had been the subject of his discussion, 
 and the object of his remonstrance and 
 reprobation. From 17G0, the Colonies, 
 the rightjj of the Colonies, the liberties 
 of the Colonies, and the wrongs inflicted 
 on the Colonies, had engaged his con- 
 stant attention; and it has surprised 
 those who have had the opj^x)rtunity of 
 witnessing it, with what full remem- 
 brance and with what prompt recoUec 
 tiou he could refer, in his exti'eme old 
 
ADAMS AND J1':FFERS0N. 
 
 167 
 
 age, to every act of Parliament affecting 
 the Colonies, distinguisliiiig and stating 
 their respective titles, sections, and pro- 
 visions; and to all the Colonial memo- 
 rials, remonstrances, and petitions, with 
 whatever else belonged to the intimate 
 and exact history of the times from that 
 year to 1775. It was, in his own judg- 
 ment, between these years that the 
 American people came to a full under- 
 standing and thorough knowledge of 
 their rights, and to a fixed resolution of 
 maintaining them; and bearing himself 
 an active part in all important transac- 
 tions, the controversy with England be- 
 ing then in effect the business of his 
 life, facts, dates, and particulars made 
 an impression which was never effaced. 
 lie was prepared, therefore, by educa- 
 tion and discipline, as well as by natural 
 talent and natural temperament, for the 
 part which he was now to act. 
 
 The eloquence of Mr. Adams resem- 
 bled his general character, and formed, 
 indeed, a part of it. It was bold, manly, 
 and energetic; and such the crisis re- 
 quired. When public bodies are to be 
 addressed on momentous occasions, 
 when great interests are at stake, and 
 strong passions excited, nothing is 
 valuable in speech farther than as it is 
 connected with high intellectual and 
 moral endowments. Clearness, force, 
 and earnestness are the qualities which 
 produce conviction. True eloquence, 
 indeed, does not consist in speech. It 
 cannot be brought from far. Labor 
 and learning may toil for it, but they 
 will toil in vain. Words and phrases 
 may be marshalled in every way, but 
 they cannot compass it. It must exist 
 in the man, in the subject, and in the 
 occasion. Affected passion, intense ex- 
 pression, the pomp of declamation, all 
 may aspire to it; they cannot reach it. 
 It comes, if it come at all, like the out- 
 breaking of a fountain from the earth, 
 or the bursting forth of volcanic fires, 
 with spontaneous, original, native force. 
 The graces taught in the schools, the 
 costly ornaments and studied contriv- 
 ances of speech, shock and disgust men, 
 when their own lives, and the fate of 
 their wives, their children, and their 
 
 country, hang on the decision of the 
 hour. Then words liave lost tiieir 
 power, rhetoric is vain, and all elaborate 
 oratory contemptible. Even genius it- 
 self then feels rebuked and subdued, 
 as in the presence of higher qualities. 
 Then patriotism is eloquent; then self- 
 devotion is eloquent. The clear con- 
 ception, outrunning the deductions of 
 logic, the high purpose, the firm resolve, 
 the dauntless spirit, speaking on th(* 
 tongue, beaming from the eye, inform- 
 ing every feature, and urging the whole 
 man onward, right onward to his ob- 
 ject, — this, this is eloquence ; or rather, 
 it is something greater and higher than 
 all eloquence, — it is action, noble, sub- 
 lime, godlike action. 
 
 In July, 1776, the controversy had 
 passed the stage of argument. An 
 appeal had been made to force, and 
 opposing armies were in the field. 
 Congress, then, was to decide whether 
 the tie which had so long bound us to 
 the parent state was to be severed at 
 once, and severed for ever. All the 
 Colonies had signified their resolution 
 to abide by this decision, and the people 
 looked for it with the most intense 
 anxiety. And surely, feUow-citizens, 
 never, never were men called to a more 
 important political deliberation. If we 
 contemplate it from the point where 
 they then stood, no question could be 
 more full of interest; if we look at it 
 now, and judge of its importance by its 
 effects, it appears of still greater mag- 
 nitude. 
 
 Let us, then, bring before us the 
 assembly, which was about to decide 
 a question thus big with the fate of 
 empire. Let us open their doors and 
 look in upon their deliberations. Let 
 us survey the anxious and careworn 
 countenances, let us hear the firm-toned 
 voices, of this band of patriots. 
 
 IIaxcock presides over the solemn 
 sitting; and one of those not yet pre- 
 pared to pronounce for absolute inde- 
 pendence is on the floor, and is urging 
 his reasons for dissenting from the 
 Declaration. 
 
 " Let us pause 1 This step, once 
 taken, cannot be retraced. This reso- 
 
168 
 
 ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 lution, once passed, will cut off all hope 
 of reconciliation. If success attend the 
 arms of England, we shall then be no 
 longer Colonies, with charters and with 
 privileges ; these will all be forfeited by 
 this act; and we shall be in the condi- 
 tion of other conquered people, at the 
 mercy of the conquerors. For ourselves. 
 Me may be ready to run the hazard ; but 
 are sve ready to carry the country to 
 thai length? Is success so probable as 
 to justify it? Where is the military, 
 where the naval power, by which we are 
 to resist the whole strength of the arm 
 of England, — for she will exert that 
 strength to Ih*' utmost? Can we rely 
 on the constancy :;iid perseverance of 
 the people? or will they not act as the 
 people of other countries have acted, 
 and, wearied with a long war, submit, 
 in the end, to a worse oppression? 
 ^^^lile we stand on our old ground, and 
 insist on redress of grievances, we know 
 we are right, and are not answerable 
 for consequences. Nothing, then, can 
 be imputed to us. But if we now 
 change our object, carry our pretensions 
 farther, and set up for absolute inde- 
 pendence, we shall lose the sjnnpathy 
 of mankind. We shall no longer be 
 defending what we possess, but strug- 
 gling for something which we never did 
 possess, and M'hich we have solemnly 
 and uniformly disclaimed all intention 
 of pursuing, from the very outset of the 
 troubles. Abandoning thus our old 
 gi'ound, of resistance only to arbitrary 
 acts of oppression, the nations will be- 
 lieve the whole to have been mere pre- 
 tence, and they will look on us, not as 
 injured, but as ambitious subjects. I 
 eh udder before this responsibility. It 
 M .11 be on us, if, relinquishing the 
 g. ound on which we have stood so long, 
 and stood so safely, we now proclaim 
 independence, and carry on the war for 
 that object, while these cities burn, 
 these pleasant fields whiten and bleach 
 with the bones of their owners, and 
 these streams run blood. It will be 
 upon us. it will be upon us, if, failing 
 to maintain this unseasonable and ill- 
 judged declaration, a sterner despotism, 
 nmiiitaiued by military jtower, shall be 
 
 established over our posterity, when wc 
 ourselves, given up by an exliausted, a 
 harassed, a misled people, shall have 
 expiated our rashness and atoned for 
 our presumption on the scaffold." 
 
 It was for Mr. Adams to reply to 
 arguments like these. We know his 
 opinions, and we know his character. 
 He would commence with his accus 
 tomed directness and earnestness. 
 
 "Sink or swim, live or die, survive 
 or perish, I give my hand and my heart 
 to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in 
 the beginning we aimed not at indepen- 
 dence. But there's a Di^onity which 
 shapes our ends. The injustice of Eng- 
 land has di'iven us to arms ; and, blinded 
 to her own interest for our good, she 
 has obstinately persisted, till indepen- 
 dence is now within our grasp. We 
 have but to reach forth to it, and it is 
 ours. Why, then, should we defer the 
 Declaration? Is any man so weak as 
 now to hope for a reconciliation with 
 England, which shall leave either safety 
 to the country and its liberties, or safety 
 to his own life and his own honor? Are 
 not you, Sir, who sit in that chair, — is 
 not he, our venerable colleagxie near 
 you, — are you not both already the in-o- 
 scribed and predestined objects of pun- 
 ishment and of vengeance? Cut off from 
 all hope of royal clemency, what are you, 
 what can you be, while the power of Eng- 
 land remains, but outlaws? If we post- 
 pone independence, do we mean to cany 
 on, or to give up, the war? Do we mean 
 to submit to the measures of Parliament, 
 Boston Port Bill and all? Do we mean 
 to submit, and consent that we our- 
 selves shall be ground to powder, and 
 our country and its rights trodden down 
 in tlie dust? I know we do not mean 
 to submit. We never shall submit. 
 Do we intend to violate that most 
 solemn obligation ever entered into by 
 men, that plighting, before God. of our 
 sacred honor to Washington, when, put- 
 ting him forth to incur tlie dangers of 
 war, as well as the political hazards of 
 the times, we promised to adhere tu him, 
 in every extremity, with our fortunes 
 and our lives? I know there is not a 
 man here, who wuuld not rather see 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 169 
 
 K 
 
 a general conflagr.'ition sweep over the 
 land, or an eartlKiuake sink it, than one 
 jot or tittle of that plighted faith fall to 
 the ground. For myself, having, twelve 
 months ago, in this place, moved you, 
 that George Washington be appointed 
 commander of the forces raised, or to be 
 raised, for defence of American liberty, ^ 
 may my right hand forget her cunning, 
 and my tongue cleave to the roof of my 
 mouth, if I hesitate or waver in the 
 support I give him. 
 
 The war, then, must go on. We 
 must fight it through. And if the war 
 must go on, why put off longer the Dec- 1 
 laration of Independence? That meas- 
 ure will strengthen us. It will give us 
 character abroad. The nations will 
 then treat with us, which they never 
 can do while we acknowledge ourselves 
 subjects, in arms against our sovereign. 
 Nay, I maintain that England herself 
 will sooner treat for peace with us on 
 the footing of independence, than con- 
 sent, by repealing her acts, to acknowl- 
 edge tliat her whole conduct towards us 
 has been a course of injustice and op- 
 pression. Iler pride will be less wound- 
 ed by submitting to that com'se of 
 things which now predestinates our in- 
 dependence, than by yielding the points 
 in controversy to her rebellious subjects. 
 The former she would regard as the re- 
 sult of fortune; the latter she would 
 feel as her own deep disgrace. Wliy, 
 then, why then. Sir, do we not as soon 
 as possible change this from a civil to 
 a national war? And since we must 
 fight it through, why not put ourselves 
 in a state to enjoy all the benefits of 
 victory, if we gain the victory? 
 
 " If we fail, it can be no worse for us. 
 But we shaU not fail. The cause will 
 raise up armies; the cause will create 
 navies. The people, the people, if we 
 are true to them, will carry us, and will 
 carry themselves, gloriously, through 
 this struggle. I care not how fickle 
 other people have been found. I know 
 the people of these Colonies, and I 
 know that resistance to British aggres- 
 sion is deep and settled in their hearts 
 
 1 See Life and Works of John Adaras, VoL 
 II. p. 417 et seq 
 
 and cannot be eradicated. Even- Col- 
 ony, indeed, has expressed its willing- 
 ness to follow, if we but take tiie lead. 
 Sir, the Declaration will insj>ire tlie 
 people with increased courage. Instead 
 of a long and bloody war for the resto- 
 ration of privileges, for redress of griev- 
 ances, for chartered immunities, held 
 under a British king, set 1. of ore them 
 the glorious object of entire indepen- 
 dence, and it will breathe into thera 
 anew the breath of life. Read this 
 )eclaration at the head of the ai-m)'; 
 very sword will be drawn from its 
 scabbard, and the solemn vow nttered, 
 to maintain it, or to perish on the bed 
 of honor. Publish it from the pulpit; 
 religion will approve it, and the love of 
 religious liberty will cling round it, re- 
 solved to stand with it, or fall with it. 
 Send it to the public halls; proclaim it 
 there; let them hear it who heard the 
 first roar of the enemy's cannon; let 
 them see it who saw their brothers and 
 their sons fall on the field of Bunker 
 Hill, and in the streets of Lexington 
 and Concord, and the very walls will 
 cry out in its support. 
 
 " Sir, I know the uncertainty ol 
 human affairs, but I see, I see clearly, 
 through this day's business. You and 
 I, indeed, may rue it. We may not 
 live to the time when this Declaration 
 shall be made good. We may die ; die 
 colonists; die slaves; die, it may be, ig- 
 nominiously and on the scaffold. Be it 
 so. Be it so. If it be the pleasure of 
 Heaven that my country shall require 
 the poor offering of my life, the victim 
 shall be ready, at the appointed hour of 
 sacrifice, come when that hour may. 
 But while I do live, let me have a 
 country, or at least the hope of a coun- 
 tiy, and that a free country. 
 
 " But whatever may be our fate, be 
 assured, be assured that this Declara- 
 tion wnll stand. It may cost treasure, 
 and it may cost blood ; but it will stand, 
 and it will richly compensate for )>oth. 
 Through the thick gloom of the present, 
 I see the brightness of the future, as 
 the sun in heaven. We shall make this 
 a glorious, an immortal day. When 
 we are in oar graves, our children will 
 
170 
 
 ADAMS A^'D JEFFERSON. 
 
 honor it. They will celebrate it with 
 thanksgiving, with festivity, with bon- 
 fires, and illuminations. On its annual 
 return they will shed tears, copious, 
 gushing tears, not of subjection and 
 slaverj', not of agony and distress, but 
 of exultation, of gratitude, and of joy. 
 Sir, before God, I believe the hour is 
 come. !My judgment apjjroves this 
 measure, and my whole heart is in it. 
 All that I have, and all that I am, and 
 all that I hope, in this life, I am now 
 ready here to stake upon it; and I leave 
 off as I begun, that live or die, survive 
 or perish, 1 am for the Declaration. It 
 is my living sentiment, and by the bless- 
 ing of God it shall be my dying senti- 
 ment, Independence now, and Indepen- 
 dence KOU EVER."^ 
 
 And so that day shall be honored, 
 illustrious prophet and patriot! so that 
 day shall be honored, and as often as it 
 returns, thy renown shall come along 
 with it, and the glory of thy life, like 
 the day of thy death, shall not fail from 
 the remembrance of men. 
 
 It would be unjust, fellow-citizens, 
 on this occasion, while we express our 
 veneration for him who is the imme- 
 diate subject of these remarks, were we 
 to omit a most respectful, affectionate, 
 and grateful mention of those other 
 gi'eat men, his colleagues, who stood 
 with him, and with the same spirit, 
 the same devotion, took part in the in- 
 teresting transaction. Ha.ncock, the 
 proscribed Hancock, exiled from his 
 home by a military governor, cut off by 
 proclamation from the mercy of the 
 crown, — Heaven reserved for him the 
 distinguished honor of ixitting this 
 great question to the vote, and of writ- 
 ing his own name first, and most con- 
 spicuously, on that paichment wliich 
 spoke defiance to tlie power of tlje 
 crown of England. Tliere, too, is the 
 name of that other proscribed patriot, 
 Samuel Adams, a man who hungered 
 and thirsted for the independence of his 
 country, who thought the Declaration 
 halted and lingered, being himself not 
 
 1 (^11 ilie aiithoi^liij) of this speech, see Note 
 at thu end ul' the Discourse. 
 
 only ready, but eager, for it, lonj? before 
 it was projwsed; a man of the deei^est 
 sagacity, the clearest foresight, and the 
 profoundest judgment in men. And 
 there is Gerry, himself among the ear- 
 liest and the foremost of the patriots, 
 found, when the battle of Lexington 
 simimoned them to common coimsels, 
 by the side of Warren; a man who 
 lived to serve his comitry at home and 
 abroad, and to die in the second place 
 in the government. There, too, is the 
 inflexible, tlie upright, the Spartan 
 character, Robert Treat Paine. He 
 also lived to ser\-e his country through 
 the struggle, and then withdrew fiom 
 her councils, only that he might give his 
 labors and his life to his native State, 
 in another relation. These names, 
 fellow-citizens, are the treasm'es of the 
 Commonwealth; and they are treasmes 
 which grow brighter by time. 
 
 It is now necessarj' to resume the nar- 
 rative, and to finish with great brevity 
 the notice of the lives of tliose whose 
 virtues and services we have met to 
 commemorate. 
 
 Mr. Adams remained in Congress 
 from its first meeting till November, 
 1777, when he was appointed Minister 
 to France. He proceeded on that ser- 
 vice in the February following, em- 
 barking in the frigate Boston, from the 
 shore of his native town, at the foot of 
 Blount Wollaston. The year following, 
 he was appointed commissioner to treat 
 of peace with England. Returning to 
 the United States, he was a dele- 
 gate from Braintree in the Convention 
 for framing the Constitution of this 
 Commonwealth, in 1780.- At tlie latter 
 end of the same year, he again went 
 abroad in the diplomatic service of the 
 country, and was employed at various 
 coiu'ts, and occupied with various ne- 
 gotiations, until 17SS. The particu- 
 lars of these interesting and important 
 services this occasion does not allow 
 time to relate. In 1782 he concluded 
 our first treaty with IloUaud. His ne- 
 
 2 In this Convention he served as chairman 
 of the committee for preparing the draft of a 
 Coustitutiuu. 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 171 
 
 gotiations with that republic, his efforts 
 to persuade the States-General to recog- 
 nize our independence, his incessant 
 and indefatigable exertions to represent 
 the American cause favorably on the 
 Continent, and to counteract the designs 
 of its enemies, open and secret, and his 
 successful undertaking to obtain loans 
 on the credit of a nation yet new and 
 unknown, are among his most arduous, 
 most useful, most honorable services. 
 It was his fortune to bear a part in the 
 negotiation for peace with England, 
 and in something more than six years 
 from the Declaration which he had so 
 strenuously supported, he had the satis- 
 faction of seeing the minister plenipo- 
 tentiary of the crown subscribe his 
 name to the instrument which declared 
 that his "Britannic Majesty acknowl- 
 edged the United States to be free, 
 sovereign, and independent." In these 
 important transactions, ^Mr. Adams's 
 conduct received the marked approba- 
 tion of Congress and of the countiy. 
 
 ■\MiiIe abroad, in 1787, he published 
 his ' ' Defence of the American Constitu- 
 tions"; a work of merit and ability, 
 though composed with haste, on the 
 spur of a particular occasion, in the 
 midst of other occupations, and under 
 circumstances not admitting of careful 
 re\'ision. The immediate object of the 
 work was to comiteract the weight of 
 opinions advanced by several popular 
 European wTiters of that day, M. Tur- 
 got, the Abbe de Mably, and Dr. Price, 
 at a time when the people of the United 
 States were employed in forming and 
 revising their systems of government. 
 
 Returning to the United States in 
 178S, he found the new government 
 about going into operation, and was 
 himself elected the first Vice-President, 
 a situation which he filled with reputa- 
 tion for eight years, at the expiration of 
 which he was raised to the Presidential 
 chair, as immediate successor to the im- 
 mortal Washington. In this high sta- 
 tion he was succeeded by ^Ir. Jefferson, 
 aftt'r a memorable controversy between 
 their respective friends, in 1801; and 
 from that period his manner of life has 
 been known to all who hear me. He 
 
 has lived, for five-and-twenty years, 
 with every enjoyment that could render 
 old age happy. Not inattentive to the 
 occurrences of the times, political cares 
 have yet not materially, or for any long 
 time, disturbed his repose. In 1820 he 
 acted as Elector of President and Vice- 
 President, and in the same year we saw 
 him, then at the age of eighty-five, a 
 member of the Convention of thig 
 Commonwealth called to revise the 
 Constitution. Forty years before, he 
 had been one of those who formed that 
 Constitution; and he had now the ])leas- 
 ure of witnessing that there was little 
 which the people desired to change.* 
 Possessing all his faculties to the end of 
 his long life, with an unabated love 
 of reading and contemplation, in the 
 centre of interesting circles of friend- 
 ship and affection, he was blessed in his 
 retirement with whatever of repose and 
 felicity the condition of man allows. 
 He had, also, other enjoyments. He 
 saw around him that prosperity and 
 general happiness which had been the 
 object of his public cares and labors. 
 Xo man ever beheld more clearly, and 
 for a longer time,, the great and benefi- 
 cial effects of the services rendered by 
 himself to his country. That liberty 
 which he so early defended, that inde- 
 pendence of which he was so able an 
 advocate and supporter, he saw, we 
 trust, firmly and securely established. 
 The population of the country thick 
 ened around him faster, and extended 
 wider, than his own sanguine predic- 
 tions had anticipated; and the wealth, 
 respectability, and power of the nation 
 sprang up to a magnitude which it is 
 quite impossible he could have expected 
 to witness in his day. He lived also to 
 behold those principles of civil freedom 
 which had been developed, established, 
 
 1 Upon the organization of this bodv, 15th 
 November, 1820, John Adams was elected its 
 President: an office which the infirmities of ai^e 
 compelled liim to decline. For the intert.'ting 
 proceedings of the Convention on this occasion, 
 the address of Chief Justice Parker, and the re 
 plv of Mr. Adams, see Journal of Dehates and 
 Proceedings in the Convention of F^eltcatef 
 chosen to revise the Constitution of Massiihii 
 setts, p 8 «< seg. 
 
172 
 
 ADAMS AND JEFFERSON 
 
 and practically applied in America, at- 
 tract attention, command respect, and 
 awaken imitation, in other regions of the 
 globe ; and well might, and well did, he 
 exclaim, " Where will the consequences 
 of the American Revolution end'/" 
 
 K any tL-ug yet remain to fill this cup 
 of lifppi.-.fecs, let it be added, that he 
 lived to see a great and uitelligent peo- 
 ple bestow the highest honor in their 
 gift where he had bestowed his own 
 kindest parental affections and lodged 
 his fondest hopes. Thus honored in 
 life, thus happy at death, he saw the 
 JUBILEE, and he died; and with the last 
 prayers which trembled on his lips was 
 the fervent supplication for his country, 
 " Independence for ever ! " * 
 
 Mr. Jefferson, having been occupied 
 in the years 1778 and 1779 in the impor- 
 tant service of revismg the laws of Vir- 
 ginia, w'a.s elected Governor of that 
 State, as successor to Patrick Henry, 
 and held the situation when the State 
 was invaded by the British arms. In 
 1781 he published his Notes on Virginia, 
 a work which attracted attention in 
 Europe as well as America, dispelled 
 many misconceptions respecting this 
 continent, and gave its author a place 
 among men distinguished for science. 
 In November, 1783, he again took his 
 seat in tlie Continental Congress, but in 
 the May following was appointed Minis- 
 ter Plenipotentiary, to act abroad, in the 
 negotiation of commercial treaties, with 
 Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams. He pro- 
 ceeded to PVance, in execution of this 
 mission, embarking at Boston; and that 
 was the only occasion on which he ever 
 visited tliis place. In 1785 he was ap- 
 pointed Minister to France, the duties 
 of which situation he continued to per- 
 form until October, 1789, when he ob- 
 tained leave to retire, just on the eve of 
 that tremendous revolution which has so 
 much agitated the world in our times. 
 Mr. Jefferson's discharge of his diplo- 
 matic duties was marked by great ability, 
 diligence, and patriotism; and while he 
 
 1 For an account of Mr. Webster's last inter- 
 view with Mr. Ailams, see March's Kciuinis- 
 eences of Congress, o. €2. 
 
 resided at Paris, in one of the most in« 
 teresting periods, his character for Intel* 
 ligence, his love of knowledge and of 
 the society of learned men, distingiushed 
 him in the highest circles of the French 
 capital. No court in Europe had at 
 that time in Paris a representative com- 
 manding or enjoying higher regard, for 
 political knowledge or for general at- 
 tainments, than the minister of this 
 then infant republic. Immediately on 
 his return to his native country, at tlie 
 organization of the government under 
 the present Constitution, his talenl^i and 
 experience recommended him to Presi- 
 dent Washington for the first office in 
 his gift. He was placed at the head of 
 the Department of State. In this situ- 
 ation, also, he manifested conspicuous 
 ability. His correspondence with the 
 ministers of other powers residing here, 
 and his instructions to our own diplo- 
 matic agents abroad, are among our 
 ablest state papers. A thorough knowl- 
 edge of the laws and usages of nations, 
 perfect acquaintance with the immediate 
 subject before hitn, great felicity, and 
 still greater facility, in writing, show 
 themselves in whatever effort his official 
 situation called on him to make. It is 
 believed by competent judges, that the 
 diplomatic intercourse of the govern- 
 ment of the United States, from the first 
 meeting of the Continental Congress in 
 177-1 to the present time, taken together, 
 would not suffer, in respect to the talent 
 with which it has been conducted, by 
 comparison with any thing which other 
 and older governments can produce; and 
 to the attainment of this respectability 
 and distinction Mr. Jefferson has con- 
 tributed his fuU part. 
 
 On the retirement of General Wash- 
 injiton from the Presidencv, and the 
 election of Mr. Adams to that office in 
 1797, he was chosen Vice-President. 
 \Miile presiding in this capacity over 
 the deliberations of the Senate, he com- 
 piled and published a Manual of Parlia- 
 mentary Practice, a work of niore labor 
 and more merit than is indicated by its 
 size. It is now received as the general 
 standard by which jMocoedings are reg- 
 ulated, not only in both Houses of Con 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 173 
 
 gress, but in most of the other legislative 
 bodies in the country. In 1801 he was 
 elected President, in opposition to ^Ir. 
 Adams, and re-elected in 180."), by a vote 
 approaching towards unanimity. 
 
 From the time of his final retirement 
 from public life, in 1809, Mr. Jefferson 
 lived as became a wise man. Sun'ounded 
 by affectionate friends, his ardor in the 
 pursuit of knowledge undiminished, 
 with uncommon liealth and unbroken 
 spirits, he was able to enjoy largely the 
 rational ]>leasures of life, and to partake 
 in that public prosperity which he had 
 60 much contributed to produce. His 
 kindness and hospitality, the charm of 
 his conversation, the ease of his man- 
 ners, the extent of his acquirements, 
 and, especially, the full store of Revolu- 
 tionary incidents which he had treas- 
 ured in his memory, and which he knew 
 when and how to dispense, rendered his 
 abode in a high degi-ee attractive to his 
 admiring countrymen, while his high 
 public and scientific character drew 
 towards him every intelligent and edu- 
 cated traveller from abroad. Both INIr. 
 Adams and ]\Ir. Jefferson had the pleas- 
 ure of knowing that the respect which 
 they so largely received was not paid to 
 tlieir official stations. They were not 
 men made great by office; but great 
 men, on whom the country for its own 
 benefit had conferred office. There was 
 that in them which office did not give, 
 and which the relinquishment of office 
 did not, and could not, take away. In 
 their retirement, in the midst of their 
 fellow-citizens, themselves private citi- 
 zens, they enjoyed as high regard and 
 esteem as when filling the most impor- 
 tant places of public trust. 
 
 There remained to Mr. Jefferson yet 
 one other work of patriotism and benefi- 
 cence, the establishment of a university 
 in his native State. To this object he 
 devoted years of incessant and anxious 
 attention, and bv the enlightened liber- 
 ality of the Legislature of Virginia, and 
 the co-operation of other able and zeal- 
 ous friends, he lived to see it accom- 
 plished. May all success attend this 
 infant seminary; and may those who 
 enjoy its advantages, as often as their 
 
 eyes shall rest on the neighboring height, 
 recollect what they owe to their disin- 
 terested and indefatigable benefactor; 
 and may letters honor him who thus la- 
 bored in the cause of letters 1 1 
 
 Thus useful, and thus respected, passed 
 the old age of Thomas Jefferson. But 
 time was on its ever-ceaseless wing, and 
 was now bringing the last hour of thia 
 illustrious man. He saw its approach 
 with undisturbed serenity. He counted 
 the moments as they passed, and beheld 
 that his last sands were falling. That 
 day, too, was at hand which he had 
 helped to make immortal. One wish, 
 one hope, if it were not presumptuous, 
 beat in his fainting breast. Could it be 
 so, miglit it i»lease God, he would desire 
 once more to see the sun, once more to 
 look abroad on the scene around him, 
 on the great day of liberty. Heaven, in 
 its mercy, fulfilled that prayer. He saw 
 that sun, he enjoyed its sacred light, he 
 tlianked God for this mercy, and bowed 
 his aged head to the gi-ave. "Felix, 
 non vit?e tantum claritate, sed etiam op- 
 portunitate mortis." 
 
 The last public labor of Mr. Jefferson 
 naturally suggests the expression of the 
 high praise which is due, both to him 
 and to Mr. Adams, for their uniform 
 and zealous attachment to learning, and 
 to the cause of general knowledge. Of 
 the advantages of learning, indeed, and 
 of literary accomplishments, their own 
 characters were striking recommenda- 
 tions and illustrations. They were schol- 
 ars, ripe and good scholars; widely 
 acquainted with ancient, as well as mod- 
 ern literature, and not altogether unin- 
 structed in the deeper sciences. Theii 
 acquirements, doubtless, were different, 
 and so were the particular objects cl 
 
 1 Jlr. Jefferson himself considered his ser- 
 vices in establishing the University of Viri^inia 
 as among the most important rendered by him 
 to the country. In Mr. Wirt's Eulogj-, it ia 
 stated that a private memorandum was found 
 among his papers, containing the fdllowing in- 
 scription to be placed on his monunieiu. — 
 "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson. Autlior of 
 the Declaration of Independence, of the Statutes 
 of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Fathef 
 of the University of Virginia." F'llngies OB 
 Adams and Jefferson, p. 426. 
 
174 
 
 ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 their literary pursuits; as their tastes 
 and characters, iu these respects, dif- 
 fered like those of other men. Being, 
 also, men of busy lives, with great ob- 
 jects requiring action constantly before 
 them, their attainments in letters did 
 not become showy or obtrusive. Yet I 
 would hazard the opinion, that, if we 
 cou'd now ascertain all the causes which 
 gave them eminence and distinction in 
 the midst of the great men with whom 
 they acted, we should find not among 
 the least their early acquisitions in liter- 
 ature, the resources which it furnished, 
 the promptitude and facility which it 
 communicated, and the wide field it 
 opened for analogy and illustration; 
 giving them thus, on every subject, a 
 larger view and a broader range, as well 
 for discussion as for the goverimient of 
 their own conduct. 
 
 Literature sometimes disgusts, and 
 pretension to it much oftener disgusts, 
 by appearing to hang loosely on the 
 character, like something foreign or ex- 
 traneous, not a part, but an ill-adjusted 
 appendage; or by seeming to overload 
 and weigh it down by its unsightly bulk, 
 like the productions of bad taste in 
 architecture, where there is massy and 
 cumbrous ornament without strength or 
 solidity of column. This has exposed 
 learning, and especially classical learn- 
 ing, to reproach. Men have seen that 
 it might exist without mental superi- 
 ority, without vigor, without good taste, 
 and without utility. But in such cases 
 classical learning has only not inspired 
 natural talent; or, at most, it has but 
 iua(l« original feebleness of intellect, and 
 natural bluntness of perception, some- 
 thing more conspicuous. The question, 
 after all, if it be a question, is, whether 
 literature, ancient as well as modern, 
 does not assist a good understandiug, 
 improve natural good taste, add polished 
 arnK)r to native strength, and render its 
 possessor, not only more capable of de- 
 rivii:cj private happiness from contem- 
 liliition and reflection, but more accom- 
 plished also for action in the affairs of 
 life, ami especially for public action. 
 Those whose memories we now honor 
 were learned men; but their learning 
 
 was kept in its proper place, and made 
 subservient to the uses and objects of 
 life. They were scholars, not common 
 nor superficial; but their scholarship 
 was so in keeping with their character, 
 so blended and inwrought, that careless 
 observers, or bad judges, not seeing an 
 ostentatious display of it, might infer 
 that it did not exist; forgetting, or not 
 knowing, that classical learning in men 
 who act in conspicuous public stations, 
 perform duties which exercise the faculty 
 of writing, or address popular, deliber- 
 ative, or judicial bodies, is often felt 
 where it is little seen, and sometimes 
 felt more effectually because it is not 
 seen at all. 
 
 But the cause of knowledge, in a more 
 enlarged sense, the cause of general 
 knowledge and of popular education, 
 had no warmer friends, nor more pow- 
 erful advocates, than Mr. Adams and 
 Mr. Jefferson. On this foundation they 
 knew the whole republican system rested ; 
 and this great and all-important truth 
 they strove to impress, by all the means 
 in their power. In the early publication 
 already referred to, Mr. Adams ex- 
 presses the strong and just sentiment, 
 that the education of the poor is more 
 important, even to the rich themselves, 
 than all their own riches. On this 
 great truth, indeed, is founded that un- 
 rivalled, that invaluable political and 
 moral institution, our own blessing and 
 the glory of our fathers, the New Eng- 
 land system of free schools. 
 
 As the promotion of knowledge had 
 been the object of their regard through 
 life, so these great men made it the sub- 
 ject of their testamentary bounty- Mr. 
 Jefferson is understood to have be- 
 queathed his library to the University of 
 Virginia, and tliat of Mr. Adams is be- 
 stowed on the inhabitants of Quincy. 
 
 Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson, fellow- 
 citizens, were successively Presidents of 
 the United States. The comparative 
 merits of their respective administra- 
 tions for a long time agitated and di- 
 vided public opinion. They were rivals, 
 each supported by numerous and power- 
 ful jHirtions of the people, for the high- 
 est ofilce. This contest, partly the cause 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 175 
 
 and partly the consequence of the long 
 existence of two great political parties 
 in the country, is now part of the his- 
 tory of our government. We may nat- 
 urally regret that any thing .should have 
 occurred to create difference and discord 
 between those who had acted harmoni- 
 ously and efiioiently in the great con- 
 cerns of the Revolution. But this is 
 nni the time, nor this the occasion, for en- 
 tering into the grounds of that differ- 
 ence, or for attempting to discuss the 
 merits of the questions which it involves. 
 As practical questions, they were can- 
 vassed when the measures which they 
 regarded were acted on and adopted; 
 and as belonging to history, the time 
 has not come for their consideration. 
 
 It is, pierhaps, not wonderful, that, 
 when the Constitution of the United 
 States first went into operation, differ- 
 ent opinions should be entertained as to 
 the extent of the powers conferred by it. 
 Here was a natural source of diversity 
 of sentiment. It is still less wonderful, 
 that that event, nearly contemporary 
 with our government under the present 
 Constitution, which so entirely shocked 
 all Europe, and disturbed our relations 
 with her leading powers, should be 
 thought, by different men, to have dif- 
 ferent bearings on our own prosperity ; 
 and that the early measures adopted by 
 the government of the United States, in 
 consequence of this new state of things, 
 should be seen in opposite lights. It is 
 for the future historian, when what now 
 remains of prejudice and misconception 
 shall have passed away, to state these 
 different opinions, and pronounce im- 
 partial judgment. In the mean time, 
 all good men rejoice, and well may re- 
 joice, that the sharpest differences sprung 
 out of measures which, whether right or 
 wrong, have ceased with the exigencies 
 that gave them birth, and have left no 
 permanent effect, either on the Consti- 
 tution or on the general prosperity of the 
 country. This remark, I am aware, may 
 be supposed to have its exception in one 
 measure, the alteration of the Constitu- 
 tion as to the mode of choosing Presi- 
 dent; but it is true in its general appli- 
 cation. Thus the course of policy 
 
 pursued towards France in 1798, on the 
 one hand, and the measures of commer- 
 cial restriction commenced in 1807, on 
 the other, both sulijects of warm and 
 severe opposition, have passed away and 
 left nothing behiiul them. They were 
 temporary, and, whether wise or unwise, 
 their consequences were limited to their 
 respective occasions. It is equally clear, 
 at the same time, and it is equally grat- 
 ifying, that those measures of botli ad- 
 ministrations which were of durable 
 importance, and which drew after them 
 momentous and long remaining conse- 
 quences, have received general appro- 
 bation. Such was the organization, or 
 rather the creation, of the navy, in the 
 administration of Mr. Adams; such the 
 acquisition of Louisiana in that of Mr. 
 Jefferson. The country, it may safely 
 be added, is not likely to be willing 
 either to approve, or to reprobate, indis- 
 criminately, and in the aggregate, all 
 the measures of either, or of any, ad- 
 ministration. The dictate of reason 
 and of justice is, that, holding each one 
 his own sentiments on the points of 
 difference, we imitate the great men 
 themselves in the forbearance and mod- 
 eration which they have cherished, and 
 in the mutual respect and kiiidne.s3 
 which they have been so much inclined 
 to feel and to reciprocate. 
 
 No men, fellow-citizens, ever served 
 their country with more entire exemi> 
 tion from every imputation of selfish and 
 mercenary motives, than those to whose 
 memory we are paying these proofs of 
 respect. A suspicion of any disjxisi- 
 tion to enrich themselves or to profit by 
 their public employments, never rested 
 on either. No sordid motive approached 
 them. The inheritance which they have 
 left to their children is of their charac- 
 ter and their fame. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, I will detain you no 
 longer by this faint and feeble tribute 
 to the memory of the illustrious dead. 
 Even in other hands, adequate justice 
 could not be done to them, within the 
 limits of this occasion. Their highest, 
 their best praise, is your deep conviction 
 of their merits, your affectionate grati- 
 tude for their labors and their services. 
 
176 
 
 ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 i 
 
 It i^ not my voice, it is this cessation of 
 ordiuarv pursuits, this arresting of ail 
 attention, tll^^se solemn ceremonies, and 
 this crowded house, which speak their 
 eulog^y. Their fame, indeed, is safe. 
 That is now treasured up beyond the 
 roach of accident. Although no sculp- 
 tured marble should rise to their mem- 
 01 y, nor engraved stone bear record of 
 their deeds, yet will their remembrance 
 be as lasting as the land they honored. 
 Marble columns may, indeed, moulder 
 into dust, time may erase all impress 
 from the crumbling stone, but their 
 fame remains; for with Amkrican lih- 
 EUTY it rose, and with Amekic.\n' lib 
 
 i ERTY ONLY Can it perish. It was the 
 last swelling peal of j-onder choir, 
 
 " TuF.IIi nODIES ARK BURIED IX PEACE, 
 BUT THEIR NAME LIVETII EVERMORE." 
 
 I catch that solemn song, I echo that 
 lofty strain of funeral triumph, " TuEiK 
 
 NAME LIVETII EVERMORE." 
 
 Of the illustrious signers of the Dec- 
 laration of Independence there now re- 
 mains only Charles Carroll. lie 
 seems an aged oak, standing alone on 
 the plain, which time has spared a little 
 longer after all its contemporaries have 
 been levelled with the dust. Venerable 
 object 1 we delight to gather round its 
 trunk, while yet it stands, and to dwell 
 beneath its shadow. Sole survivor of 
 an assembly of as gi-eat men as the 
 world has witnessed, in a transaction 
 one of tiie most important that history 
 records, what thoughts, what interesting 
 reflections, must fill his elevated and 
 devout soul I If he dwell on the past, 
 how touching its recollections; if he sur- 
 vey the present, how happy, how joyous, 
 how full of the fruition of that hope which 
 his ardent patriotism indulged; if he 
 glance at the future, how does the prospect 
 of his I'ouiitry's advancement almost be- 
 wilder his weakened conception! Fortu- 
 nate, distinguished patriot ! Interesting 
 relic of the past I Let him know that, 
 while we honor the dead, we do not for- 
 get the living; and that there is not a 
 heart hero which does not fervently pray 
 that Heaven may keep him yet back 
 from the society of his companions. 
 
 And now. fellow-citizens, let us not re- 
 tire from this occasion without a deep and 
 solemn conviction of the duties which 
 have devolved upon us. This lovely land, 
 this glorious liberty, these benign insti- 
 tutions, the dear purchase of our fathers, 
 are ours ; ours to enjoy, ours to preserve, 
 ours to transmit. Generations past and 
 generations to come hold us responsible 
 for this sacred trust. Our fathers, from 
 behind, admonish us, with their anxious 
 paternal voices; posterity calls out to us, 
 from the bosom of the future ; the world 
 turns hither its solicitous eyes; all, all 
 conjure us to act wisely, and faithfully, 
 in the relation which we sustain. We 
 can never, indeed, pay the debt which is 
 upon us; but by virtue, by morality, by 
 religion, by the cultivation of every 
 good principle and every good habit, 
 we may hope to enjoy the blessing, 
 through our day, and to leave it un- 
 impaired to our children. Let us feel 
 deeply how much of what we are and of 
 what we possess we owe to this liberty, 
 and to these institutions of government. 
 Nature has, indeed, given us a soil which 
 yields bounteously to the hand of in- 
 dustry, the mighty and fruitful ocean is 
 before us, and the skies over our heads 
 shed health and vigor. But what are 
 lands, and seas, and skies, to civilized 
 man, without society, without knowl- 
 edge, without morals, without religious 
 culture; and how can these be enjoyed, 
 in all their extent and all their excel- 
 lence, but under the protection of wise 
 institutions and a free government? Fel- 
 low-citizens, there is not one of us, there 
 is not one of us here present, who does 
 not, at this moment, and at every mo- 
 ment, experience, in his own condition, 
 and in the condition of those most near 
 and dear to him, the influence and the 
 benefits of this liberty and these insti- 
 tutions. Let us then acknowledge the 
 blessing, let us feel it deeply and power- 
 fully, let us cherish a strong affection 
 for it, atui resolve to maintain and per- 
 petuate it. The blood of our fatiiers, 
 let it not have been shed in vain ; the 
 great hope of posterity, let it not be 
 blasted. 
 
 The striking attitude, too, in which 
 
 
ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 177 
 
 we stand to the world around us, a topic 
 to which, I fear, I advert too often, and 
 dwell on too lonp^, cannot be altogether 
 omitted here. Neither individuals nor 
 nations can perform their part well, until 
 they understand and feel its importance, 
 and comprehend and justly appreciate 
 all the duties belonging to it. It is not 
 to inflate national vanity, nor to swell a 
 light and empty feeling of self-impor- 
 tance, but it is that we may judge justly 
 of our situation, and of our own duties, 
 that I earnestly urge upon you this con- 
 sideration of our position and our char- 
 acter among the nations of the earth. 
 It cannot be denied, but by those who 
 would dispute against the sun, that with 
 America, and in America, a new era 
 commences in human affairs. This era 
 is distinguished by free representative 
 governments, by entire religious liberty, 
 by improved systems of national inter- 
 course, by a newly awakened and an 
 unconquerable spirit of free inquiry, and 
 by a diffusion of kiaowledge through the 
 community, such as has been before alto- 
 gether unknown and unheard of. Amer- 
 
 ica, America, our country, fellow-citizens, 
 our own dear and native land, is insep- 
 arably connected, fast bound up, in 
 fortune and by fate, with these great 
 interests. If they fall, we fall with 
 them; if they stand, it will be because 
 we have maintained them. Let us con- 
 template, then, this connection, which 
 binds the prosperity of others to our 
 own; and let iis manfully discharge all 
 the duties which it imposes. If we 
 cherish the virtues and the principles of 
 our fathers, Heaven will assist us to 
 carry on the work of liuman liberty and 
 human happiness. Auspicious omens 
 cheer us. Great examples are before us. 
 Our own firmament now shines brightly 
 upon our path. Washington is in 
 the clear, upper sky. These other stars 
 have now joined the American constel- 
 lation; they circle round their centre, 
 and the heavens beam with new light. 
 Beneath this illumination let us walk 
 the course of life, and at its close de- 
 voutly commend our beloved country, the 
 common parent of us all, to the Divine 
 Benignity. 
 
 1 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 Page 170. 
 
 The question has often been asked, 
 whether the anonymous speech against 
 the Declaration of Independence, and the 
 speech in support of it ascribed to John 
 Adams in the preceding Discourse, are a 
 portion of tlie debates wineli actually took 
 place in 177G in the Continental Congress. 
 Not only has this inquiry been propounded 
 in the public papers, but several letters on 
 the subject have been addressed to Mr. 
 Webster ^nd his friends. For this reason, 
 it may be proper to state, that those 
 speeches were composed by Mr. Webster, 
 after the manner of the ancient historians, 
 as embodying in an impressive form the 
 arguments relied upon by the friends and 
 opponents of the measure, respectively. 
 They of course represent tlie speeches that 
 *vere actually made on both sides, but no 
 report of the debates of this period has 
 been preserved, and the orator on the pres- 
 ent occasion had no aid in framing these 
 addresses, but what was furnished by 
 general tradition and the known line of 
 
 12 
 
 argument pursued by the speakers and 
 writers of that day for and against the 
 measure of Independence. The first sen- 
 tence of the speech ascribed to Mr. Adams 
 was of course suggested by the parting 
 scene with Jonatiian Sewall, as described 
 by Mr. Adams himself, in the Preface to 
 the Letters of Novanglus and Massachu- 
 settensis. 
 
 So much interest has been taken in this 
 subject, that it has been thought itroiu-r, by 
 way of settling the question in the most 
 authentic manner, to give publicity to the 
 following answer, written by Mr. Webster 
 to one of the letters of inquiry above al- 
 luded to. 
 
 " Washington, 22 January, 1846. 
 
 "Dear Sir: — 
 
 " I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt 
 of vour letter of the 18th instant. Its contents 
 hariUv surprise me, as I have received very 
 nianv" similar cniiuiumications. 
 
 "Your inciuiry is easily answered. The Con- 
 gress i)f the Kevohition sat with closed doors. 
 Its proceedings were made known to the iiuhlic 
 from time to time, by printing iu journal ; bul 
 
178 
 
 ADAMS AND JEFFERSON. 
 
 the debates were not published. So far as I 
 know, there is not existing, in print or manu- 
 ecript, the speech, or any part or fragment of 
 the speech, delivered by Mr. Adanison the ques- 
 tion of the Declaration of Independence. We 
 only know, from the testimony of his auditors, 
 that he spoke with remarkable ability and char- 
 acteristic earnestness. 
 
 " The day after the Declaration was made, 
 Mr. Adams, In writing to a friend,' declared the 
 event to be one that ' ought to be commemorat- 
 ed, as tlie dav of deliverance, by solemn acts of 
 devotion to 6od Almighty. It ought to be sol- 
 emnized with pomp and parade, with shows, 
 ga nes, sports, guns, bells, Doafires, and illumi- 
 
 ^ See Inciters of John Adams to his Wife, 
 Vol. I. p. 128, note. 
 
 nations, from one end of this continent to the 
 other, from this time forward, for evermore.' 
 
 "And on the day of his death, hearing the 
 noise of bells and cannon, he at'ked the occasion. 
 On being reminded that it was 'Independent 
 day,' he replied, 'Independence for ever'.' 
 These expressions were introduced into tiie 
 speech supposed to have been made by him. 
 For the rest I must be answerable. The S[)eech 
 was written by me, in my house in Boston, the 
 day before the delivery of the Discourse iu lan- 
 eull llall ; a poor substitute, I am sure it would 
 appear to be, if we could now see the speech 
 actually made by Mr. Adams on that transceu- 
 dently important occasion. 
 
 " 1 am, respectfully, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 ''DjUOKL WKB8TKR." 
 
THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 
 
 iN ARGIBIENT MADE IN THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS, IN TUF 
 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY TERM, 1827. 
 
 [Tni9 was an action of assumpsit, brought 
 originally in the Circuit Court of Louisiana, 
 by Saunders, a citizen of Kentucky, against 
 ()\rden, a citizen of Louisiana. The plain- 
 tiff below declarud upon certain bills of 
 exchange, drawn on the 30th of September, 
 1806, by one Jordan, at Lexington, in the 
 State of Kentucky, upon the defendant 
 below, Ogden, in the city of New York, 
 (the defendant then being a citizen and 
 resident of the State of New Y'ork,) ac- 
 cepted by him at the city of New York, and 
 protested for non-payment. 
 
 The defendant below pleaded several 
 pleas, among which was a certificate of 
 discharge under the act of the legislature 
 of the State of New York, of April ;3d, 
 1801, for the relief of insolvent debtors, 
 commonly called the Three-Fourths Act. 
 
 The jury found the facts in the form of 
 a special verdict, on which the court ren- 
 dered a judgment for the plaintiff below, 
 and the cause was brought by writ of error 
 before this court. The question which 
 arose under this plea, as to the validity of 
 the law of New York as being repugnant 
 to the Constitution of the United States, 
 was argued at February term, 1824, by Mr. 
 Clay, Mr. D. B. Ogden, and Mr. Haines, for 
 theplaintiff in error, and by Mr. Webster 
 and Mr. Wheaton, for the defendant iu error, 
 and the cause was continued for advisement 
 until the present term. It was again ar- 
 gued at the present term, by Mr. Webster 
 and Mr. Wheaton, against the validity, and 
 bv the Attorney-General, Mr. E. Living- 
 ston, Mr D. B. Ogden, Mr. Jones, and Mr. 
 Sampson, for the validity. 
 
 Mr. Wheaton opened the argument for 
 the defendant in error ; he was followed by 
 the counsel for the plaintiff in error; and 
 Mr. Webster replied as follows.] 
 
 The question arising in this case is 
 not more important, nor so important 
 even, in its bearing on individual cases 
 of private right, as in its character of a 
 
 public political question. The Consti- 
 tution was intended to accomplish a 
 great political object. Its design was 
 not so much to prevent injustice or in- 
 jury in one case, or in successive single 
 ciises, as it was to make general salutary 
 provisions, which, in their operation, 
 should give security to all contracts, 
 stability to credit, uniformity among all 
 the States in those things which mate- 
 rially concern the foreign commerce of 
 the country, and their own credit, trade, 
 and intercourse with each other. The 
 real question, is, therefore, a much 
 broader one than has been argued. It 
 is this: Whether the Constitution has 
 not, for general political purposes, or- 
 dained that bankrupt laws should be 
 established only by national authority? 
 We contend that such was the intention 
 of the Constitution; an intention, as we 
 think, plainly manifested iu several of 
 its provisions. 
 
 The act of New York, under which 
 this question arises, provides that a 
 debtor may be discharged from all his 
 debts, upon assigning his property to 
 trustees for the use of his creditors. 
 When applied to the discharge of debts 
 contracted before the date of the law, 
 this court has decided that the act is 
 invalid.^ The act itself makes no dis- 
 tinction between past and future debts, 
 but provides for the discharge of both 
 in the same manner. In the case, then, 
 of a debt already existing, it is admitted 
 
 1 Sturges V. Crowuiashield, 4 Wheat. Rep. 
 122. 
 
180 
 
 THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 
 
 that the act does impair the obligation 
 of contracts. We wish the full extent 
 of this decision to be well considered. 
 It is not merely that the legislature of 
 the State cannot interfere by law, in the 
 particular case of A or B, to injure or 
 impair rights which have become vested 
 under contracts; but it is, that they 
 Lave no power by general law to regu- 
 late the manner in which all debtors 
 may be discharged from subsisting con- 
 tracts; in other words, they cannot pass 
 general bankrupt laws to be applied in 
 presenti. Now, it is not contended that 
 such laws are unjust, aud ought not to 
 be passed by any legislature. It is not 
 said that they are unwise or impolitic. 
 On the contrary, we know the general 
 practice to be, that, when bankrupt 
 laws are established, they make no dis- 
 tinction between present and future 
 debts. While all agree that special 
 acts, made for individual cases, are un- 
 just, all admit that a general law, made 
 for all cases, may be both just and poli- 
 tic. The question, then, which meets 
 us on the threshold is this : If the Con- 
 stitution meant to leave the States the 
 power of establishing systems of bank- 
 ruptcy to act upon future debts, what 
 great or important object of a political 
 nature is answered by denj'ing the power 
 of making such systems applicable to 
 existing debts? 
 
 The argument used in Sturges v. 
 Crowninshield was, at least, a plausible 
 and consistent argument. It maintained 
 that the prohibition of the Constitution 
 was levelled only against interferences 
 in individual cases, and did not apply 
 to general laws, whether those laws 
 were retrospective or prospective in their 
 operation. But the court rejected that 
 conclusion. It decided that the Consti- 
 tution was intended to apply to general 
 laws or systems of bankruptcy ; that an 
 act providing that all debtors might be 
 discharged fi-om all creditors, upon cer- 
 tain conditions, was of no more validity 
 than an act ])roviding that a particular 
 debtor, A, .should be discharged on the 
 same conditions from his particular cred- 
 itor. B. 
 
 It being thus decided that general 
 
 laws are within the prohibition of the 
 Constitution, it is for the plaintiff in 
 error now to show on what ground, con- 
 sistent with the general objects of the 
 Constitution, he can establish a distinc- 
 tion which can give effect to those gen- 
 eral laws in their application to future 
 debts, while it denies them effect in 
 their application to subsisting debts. 
 The words are, that "no State shall 
 pass any law impairing the obligation 
 of contracts." The general operation of 
 all such laws is to impair that obliga- 
 tion ; that is, to discharge the obligation 
 without fulfilling it. This is admitted; 
 and the only ground taken for the dis- 
 tinction to stand on is, that, when the 
 law was in existence at the time of the 
 making of the contract, the parties must 
 be supposed to have reference to it, or, as 
 it is usually expressed, the law is made 
 a part of the contract. Before consid- 
 ering what foundation there is for this 
 argument, it may be well to inquire 
 what is that obligation of contracts 
 of which the v^oustitution speaks, and 
 whence is it derived. 
 
 The definition given by the court in 
 Sturges v. Crowninshield is sufficient for 
 our present purpose. " A contract," 
 say the court, " is an agreement to do 
 some particular thing; the law binds 
 the party to perform this agreejnent, 
 and this is the obligation of the con- 
 tract." 
 
 It is indeed probable that the Consti- 
 tution used the words in a somewhat 
 more popular sense. We speak, for ex- 
 ample, familiarly of a usurious contract, 
 and yet we say, speaking technically, 
 that a usurious agreement is no con- 
 tract. 
 
 By the obligation of a contract, we 
 should understand the Constitution to 
 mean, the duty of performing a legal 
 agreement. If the contract be lawful, 
 the party is bound to perform it. But 
 bound by what? What is it that binds 
 him? And this leads us to what we re- 
 gard as a jM'incipal fallacy in the argu- 
 ment on the other side. That argument 
 snpiK)ses, and insists, that the whole 
 obligation of a contract has its origin in 
 the m'laicipal law. This position we 
 
THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 
 
 ISI 
 
 oonhovert. We do not say that it is 
 that obligation which springs from con- 
 science merely; but we deny that it is 
 only such as springs from the particular 
 law of the place where the contract is 
 made. It must be a lawful contract, 
 doubtless; that is, permitted and al- 
 lowed; because society has a right to 
 prohibit all such contracts, as well as all 
 Buch actions, as it deems to be mischiev- 
 ous or injurious. But if the contract 
 be such as the law of society tolerates, 
 in other words, if it be lawful, then we 
 say, the duty of performing it springs 
 from universal law. And this is the 
 concurrent sense of all the writers of 
 authority. 
 
 The duty of performing promises is 
 thus shown to rest on universal law; 
 and if, departing from this well-estab- 
 lished principle, we now follow the 
 teachers who instruct us that the obli- 
 gation of a contract has its origin in the 
 law of a particular State, and is in all 
 cases what that law makes it, and no 
 more, and rto less, we shall probably 
 find ourselves involved in inextricable 
 difficulties. A man promises, for a val- 
 uable consideration, to pay money in 
 New York. Is the obligation of that 
 contract created by the laws of that 
 State, or does it subsist independent of 
 those laws? We contend that the obli- 
 gation of a contract, that is, the duty of 
 performing it, is not created by the law 
 of the particular place where it is made, 
 and dependent on that law for its exist- 
 ence; but that it may subsist, and does 
 subsist, without that law, and indepen- 
 dent of it. The obligation is in the 
 contract itself, in the assent of the par- 
 ties, and in the sanction of universal 
 law. This is the doctrine of Grotius, 
 Vattel, Burlamaqui, Pothier, and Ru- 
 therforth. Tlie contract, doubtless, is 
 necessarily to be enforced by the munici- 
 pal law of the place where performance 
 is demanded. The municipal law acts 
 on the contract after it is made, to com- 
 pel its execution, or give damages for 
 its violation. But this is a very differ- 
 ent thing from the same law being the 
 origin or fountain of the contract. 
 
 Let us illustrate this matter by an ex- 
 
 ample. Two persons contract together 
 in New York for the delivery, by one to 
 the other, of a domestic animal, a uten- 
 sil of husbandry, or a weapon of war. 
 This is a lawful contract, and, while the 
 parties remain in New York, it is to be 
 enforced by the laws of that State. But 
 if they remove with the article to Penn- 
 sylvania or Maryland, there a new law 
 comes to act upon the contract, and to 
 apply other remedies if it be broken. 
 Thus far the rem'^dies are furnished by 
 the laws of society. But suppose the 
 same parties to go together to a savage 
 wilderness, or a desert island, bej'ond 
 the reach of tlie laws of any society. 
 The obligation of the contract still sub- 
 sists, and is as perfect as ever, and is 
 now to be enforced by another law, that 
 is, the law of nature; and the party to 
 whom the promise was made has a right 
 to take by force the animal, the utensil, 
 or the weapon that was promised him. 
 The right is as perfect here as it was in 
 Pennsylvania, or even in New York; 
 but this could not be so if the obligation 
 were created by the law of New York, 
 or were dependent on that law for its 
 existence, because the laws of that State 
 can have no operation beyond its terri- 
 tory. Let us reverse this example. 
 Suppose a contract to be made between 
 two persons cast ashore on an uninhab- 
 ited territory, or in a place over which 
 no law of society extends. There are 
 such places, and contracts have been 
 made by individuals casually there, and 
 these contracts have been enforced in 
 courts of law in civilized communities. 
 Whence do such contracts derive their 
 obligation, if not from universal law? 
 
 If these considerations show us that 
 the obligation of a lawful contract doea 
 not derive its force from the particular 
 law of the place where made, but may 
 exist where that law does not exist, and 
 be enforced where that law has no va- 
 lidity, then it follows, we contend, that 
 any statute which diminishes or lessens 
 its obligation does impair it. whether 
 it precedes or succeeds the contract in 
 date. The contract having an indepen- 
 dent origin, whenever the law comes to 
 exist together with it, and interfere* 
 
182 
 
 THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 
 
 with it, it lessens* we say, and impairs, 
 its own original and independent obli- 
 gation. In the case before the court, 
 the contract did not owe its existence to 
 the particular law of Xew York ; it did 
 not depend on that law, but could be 
 enforced without the territory of that 
 State, as well as within it Nev^rthe- 
 less, though legal, though thus indepen- 
 dently existing, though thus binding 
 the party everywhere, and capable of 
 being enforced everywhere, yet the stat- 
 ute of Xew York says that it shall be 
 discharged without payment. This, we 
 say, impairs the obligation of that con- 
 tract. It is admitted to have been legal 
 in its inception, legal in its full extent, 
 and capable of being enforced by other 
 tribunals according to its terms. An 
 act, then, purporting to discharge it 
 without payment, is, as we contend, an 
 act impairing its obligation. 
 
 Here, however, we meet the opposite 
 argument, stated on different occasions 
 in different terms, but usixally summed 
 up in this, that the law itself is a part 
 of the contract, and therefore cannot im- 
 pair it. AMiat does this mean? Let us 
 seek for clear ideas. It does not mean 
 that the law gives any particular con- 
 Btmction to the terms of the contract, 
 or that it makes the promise, or the con- 
 sideration, or the time of performance, 
 other than is expressed in the instru- 
 ment itself. It can only mean, that it 
 is to be taken as a part of the contract, 
 or understanding of the parties, that the 
 contract itself shall be enforced by such 
 laws and regulations, respecting remedy 
 and for the enforcement of contracts, as 
 are in being in the State where it is 
 made at the time of entering into it. 
 This is meant, or nothing very clearly 
 intelligible is meant, by saying the law 
 \'\ part of the contract. 
 
 There is no authority in adjudged 
 oa^es for the plaintiff in error but the 
 State decisions which have been cited, 
 and, as has already been stated, they all 
 rest on this reason, that the law is part 
 of the contract. 
 
 Against this we contend, — 
 
 Ist. That, if the proposition were true, 
 the consequence would not follow. 
 
 2d. That the proposition itself cannot 
 be maintained. 
 
 1. If it were true that the law is to be 
 considered as part of the contract, tho 
 consequence contended for would not 
 follow; because, if this statute be part 
 of the contract, so is every other legal 
 or constitutional provision existing at 
 the time which affects the contract, or 
 which is capable of affecting it ; and 
 especially this very article of the Con- 
 stitution of the United States is part of 
 the contract. The plaintiff in error ar- 
 gues in a complete circle. He supi>oses 
 the parties to have had reference to it 
 because it was a binding law, and yet he 
 proves it to be a binding law only upon 
 the ground that such reference was made 
 to it. We come before the court alleg- 
 ing: the law to be void, as unconstitu- 
 tional ; they stop the inquiry by opposing 
 to us the law itself. Is this logical? 
 Is it not precisely ohject'io eju-^, cujus 
 dissolulio petitur? If one bring a bill to 
 set aside a judgment, is that judgment 
 itself a good plea in bar to the bill? 
 We propose to inquire if this law is of 
 force to control our contract, or whether, 
 by the Constitution of the United States, 
 such force be not denied to it. The plain- 
 tiff in error stops us by sapng that it 
 does control the contract, and so arrives 
 shortly at the end of the debate. Is it 
 not obvious, that, supposing the act of 
 New York to be a part of the contract, 
 the question still remains as undecided 
 as ever. What is that act? Is it a law, 
 or is it a nullity? a thing of force, or a 
 thing of no force? Suppose the parties 
 to have contemplated this act, what did 
 they contemplat<3? its words only, or its 
 legal effect? its words, or the force which 
 the Constitution of the United States 
 allows to it? If the parties contem- 
 plated any law, they contemplated all 
 the law that bore on their contract, the 
 aggregate of all the statute and constitu- 
 tional provisions. To suppose that they 
 had in view one statute without regard- 
 ing others, or that they contemplated a 
 statute without considering that para- 
 mount constitutional pro>Tsions might 
 control or qualify that statute, or abro- 
 gate it altogether, is unreasonable and 
 
THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 
 
 183 
 
 inadmissible. " This contract," says 
 one of the autliorities relied on, " is to 
 be construed as if the law were specially 
 recited in it." Let it be so for the sake 
 of argument. But it is also to be con- 
 strued as if the prohibitory clause of the 
 Constitution were recited in it, and this 
 brings us back again to the precise point 
 fron\ which we departed. 
 
 The Constitution always accompanies 
 ihe law, and the latter can have no force 
 which the former does not allow to it. 
 If the reasoning were thro\\-n into the 
 foi n of special pleading, it would stand 
 thus : the plaintiff declares on his debt ; 
 the defendant pleads his discharge under 
 the law ; the plaintiff alleges the law un- 
 constitutional ; but the defendant says, 
 You knew of its existence ; to which the 
 answer is obvious and irresistible, I 
 knew its existence on the statute-book 
 of Xew York, but 1 knew, at the same 
 time, it wius null and void under the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. 
 
 The language of another leading de- 
 cision is, "A law in force at the time of 
 making the contract does not violate 
 that contract ' ' ; but the very question 
 is, whether there be any such law "in 
 force"; for if the States have no au- 
 thority to pass such laws, then no such 
 law can be in force. The Constitution 
 is a part of the contract as much as 
 the law, and was as much in the con- 
 templation of the parties. So that the 
 proposition, if it be admitted that the 
 law is part of the contract, leaves us 
 just where it found us; that is to say, 
 under the necessity of comparing the law 
 with the Constitution, and of deciding 
 by such comparison whether it be valid 
 or invalid. If the law be unconstitu- 
 tional, it is void, and no party can be 
 supposed to have had reference to a 
 void law. If it be constitutional, no 
 reference to it need be supposed. 
 
 2. But the proposition itself cannot be 
 maintained. The law is no part of the 
 contract. "VMiat part is it? the prom- 
 ise? the consideration? the condition? 
 Clearly, it is neither of these. It is no 
 term of the contract. It acts upon the 
 contract only when it is broken, or to 
 discharge the party from its obligation 
 
 after it is broken. The municipal lav» 
 is tJie force of society employed to com- 
 pel the performance of contracts. In 
 every judgment in a suit on contract, 
 the damages are given, and the impris- 
 onment of the person or sale of goods 
 awarded, not in performance of the con- 
 tract, or as part of the contract, but as 
 an indemnity for the breach of the con 
 tract. Even interest, which is a stron<; 
 case, where it is not expressed in the 
 contract itself, can only be given as 
 damages. It is all but absurd to say 
 that a man's goods are sold on a Jieri 
 facias, or that he himself goes to jail, 
 in pursuance of his contract. These are 
 the penalties which the law inflicts for 
 the breach of his contract. Doubtless, 
 parties, when they enter into contracts, 
 may well consider both what their rights 
 and what their liabilities will be by 
 the law, if such contracts be broken;, 
 but this contemplation of consequences 
 which can ensue only when the contract 
 is broken, is no part of the contract it- 
 self. The law has nothing to do with- 
 the contract till it be broken; how, then, 
 can it be said to form a part of the con- 
 tract itself? 
 
 But there are other cogent and more 
 specific reasons against considering the- 
 law as part of the contract. (1.) If the 
 law be part of the contract, it cannot be- 
 repealed or altered; because, in such, 
 case, the repealing or modifying law it- 
 self would impair the obligation of the- 
 contract. The insolvent law of New 
 York, for example, authorizes the dis- 
 charge of a debtor on the consent of two ■ 
 thirds of his creditors. A subsequent 
 act requires the consent of three fourths ; 
 but if the existing law be part of the 
 contract, this latter law would be void. 
 In short, nothing which is part of the 
 contract can be varied but by consent of 
 the parties ; therefore the argument runs 
 in absurdum; for it proves that no laws 
 for enforcing the contract, or giving 
 remedies upon it, or any way affeciing 
 it, can be changed or modified between 
 its creation and its end. If the law in 
 question binds one party on the ground 
 of assent to it, it binds both, and binds 
 them until they agree to termiuate its 
 
184 
 
 THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 
 
 operation. (2.) If the party be bound 
 by an implied assent to the law, as there- 
 by making the law a part of the contract, 
 how would it be if the parties had ex- 
 pressly dissented, and agreed that the 
 law should make no part of the contract? 
 Suppose the promise to have been, that 
 the promisor would pay at all events, and 
 not take advantage of the statute; still, 
 •jvould not the statute operate on the 
 whole, — on tliis particular agi-eement 
 and all? and does not this show that the 
 law is no part of the contract, but some- 
 thing above it? (;3.) If the law of the 
 place be paii; of the contract, one of its 
 terms and conditions, how could it be 
 enforced, as we all know it might be, in 
 another jurisdiction, which should have 
 uo regard to the law of the place? Sup- 
 pose the parties, after the contract, to 
 remove to another State, do they carry 
 the law witli them as part of their con- 
 tract? We all know they do not. Or 
 take a common case. Some States have 
 laws abolishing imprisonment for debt ; 
 these laws, according to the argument, 
 are all parts of the contract; how, then, 
 can the party, when sued in another 
 State, be imprisoned contrary to the 
 terms of his contract? (4.) The argu- 
 ment proves too much, inasmuch as it 
 applies as strongly to prior as to subse- 
 quent contracts. It is founded on a 
 supposed assent to the exercise of legis- 
 lative authority, without considering 
 whether that exercise be legal or illegal. 
 But it is equally fair to found the argu- 
 ment ou an implied assent to the poten- 
 tial exercise of that authority. The 
 inq lied reference to the control of legis- 
 lative power is as reasonable and as 
 strong when that power is dormant, as 
 while it is in exercise. In one case, 
 tlie arg'iment is, " The law existed, 
 you knew it, and acquiesced." In the 
 other it is, " The power to pass the law 
 exi.sted, you knew it, and took your 
 chance." There is as clear an assent in 
 one instance as in the other. Indeed, it 
 is more reasonable and more sensible to 
 imply a general assent to all the laws of 
 society, present and to come, from the 
 fact of living in it, than it is to imply a 
 particular assent to a particular existing 
 
 enactment. The true view of the mattei 
 is, that every man is presumed to sub- 
 mit to all power which may be lawfully 
 exercised over him or his right, and no 
 one should be presumed to submit to 
 illegal acts of power, whether actual or 
 contingent. (5.) But a main objection 
 to this argument is, that it would render 
 the whole constitutional provision icu»» 
 and inoperative; and no explanatoiy 
 words, if such words had been added in 
 the Con.stitution, could have prevented 
 this consequence. The law, it is said, 
 is part of the contract ; it cannot, there- 
 fore, impair the contract, because a con- 
 tract cannot impair itself. Now, if this 
 argument be sound, the case would have 
 been the same, whatever words the Con- 
 stitution had used. If, for example, it 
 had declared that no State should pass 
 any law impairing contracts pro.<pec- 
 lively or retrospective! i/ ; or any law im- 
 pairing contracts, whether existing or 
 future; or, whatever terms it had used 
 to prohibit precisely such a law as is now 
 before the court, — the prohibition would 
 be totally nugatory if the law is to be 
 taken as part of tlie contract; and the 
 result M'ould be, tliat, whatever may be 
 the laws which the States by this clause 
 of the Constitution are prohibited from 
 passing, yet, if they in fact do pass such 
 laws, those laws are valid, and bind par- 
 ties by a supposed assent. 
 
 But further, this idea, if well founded, 
 would enable the States to defeat the 
 whole constitutional provision by a gen- 
 eral enactment. Suppose a State should 
 declare, by law, that all contracts en- 
 tered into therein should be subject to 
 such laws as the legislature, at any 
 time, or from time to time, might see 
 fit to pass. This law, according to the 
 argument, would enter into the contract, 
 become a part of it, and authorize the 
 interference of the legislative power 
 with it, for any and all purposes, wholly 
 uncontrcUed by the Constitutiou of the 
 United States. 
 
 So much for the argument that the 
 law is a part of the contract. "We think 
 it is shown to be not so; and if it were, 
 the expected consequence would not fol- 
 low. 
 
THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 
 
 185 
 
 Hie inquiry, then, recurs, whether the 
 law in (question be such a law as the 
 legislature of New York had authority 
 to pass. The question is general. We 
 differ from our learned adversaries on 
 general principles. We differ as to the 
 main scope and end of this constitutional 
 provision. They think it entirely reme- 
 dial; we regard it as preventive. They 
 think it adopted to secure redress for 
 violated private rights; to us, it seems 
 intended to guard against great public 
 mischiefs. They argue it as if it wero 
 designed as an indemnity or protection 
 for injured private rights, in individual 
 cases of meum and tuum; we look upon 
 it as a great political provision, favora- 
 ble to the commerce and credit of the 
 ^yhole country. Certainly we do not 
 deny its application to cases of violated 
 private right. Such cases are clearly and 
 unquestionably within its operation. 
 Still, we think its main scope to be gen- 
 eral and political. And this, we think, 
 is proved by reference to the historj' of 
 the country, and to the great objects 
 which were sought to be attained by tho 
 establishment of the present govern- 
 ment. Commerce, credit, and confi- 
 dence were the principal things which 
 did not exist under the old Confedera- 
 tion, and wliich it was a main object of 
 the present Constitution to create and 
 establish. A vicious system of legisla- 
 tion, a system of paper money and ten- 
 der laws, had completely paralyzed in- 
 dustry, threatened to beggar every man 
 of property, and ultimately to ruin the 
 country. The relation between debtor 
 and creditor, always delicate, and al- 
 ways dangerous whenever it divides so- 
 ciety, and draws out the respective par- 
 ties into different ranks and classes, was 
 in such a condition in the years 1787, 
 1788, and 1789, as to threaten the over- 
 throw of all govei-nment; and a revolu- 
 tion was menaced, much more critical 
 and alarming than that through which 
 tiie country had recently passed. The 
 object of the new Constitution was to 
 arre.st these evils; to awaken industry 
 by giving security to property ; to estab- 
 lish confidence, credit, and commerce, 
 by salutary laws, to be enforced by the 
 
 power of the whole community. The 
 Revolutionary \\'ar was over, the coun- 
 try had peace, but little domestic tran- 
 quillity; it had liberty, but few of ita 
 enjoyments, and none of its security 
 The States had struggled together, but 
 tlieir union was imperfect. They had 
 freedom, but not an established course 
 of justice. The Constitution was there- 
 fore framed, as it professes, ♦' to form a 
 more perfect union, to establish justice, 
 to secure the blessings of liberty, and to 
 insure domestic tranquillity." 
 
 It is not pertinent to this occasion to 
 advert to all the means by which the.se 
 desirable ends were to be obtained. 
 Some of them, clo.sely connected with 
 the subject now under consideration, 
 are obvious and prominent. The ob- 
 jects were commerce, credit, and mutual 
 confidence in matters of property; and 
 these required, among other things, a 
 uniform standard of value or medium 
 of payments. One of the fir.st powers 
 given to Congress, therefore, is that of 
 coining money and fixing the value of 
 foreign coins; and one of the first re- 
 straints imposed on the States is the 
 total prohibition to coin money. These 
 two provisions are industriously followed 
 up and completed by denying to the 
 States all power to emit bills of credit, 
 or to make any thing but gold and sil- 
 ver a tender in the payment of debts. 
 The whole control, therefore, over the 
 standard of value and medium of pay- 
 ments is vested in the general govern- 
 ment. And here the question in- 
 stantly suggests itself, Why should such 
 pains be taken to confide to Congress 
 alone this exclusive power of fixing on 
 a standard of value, and of prescribing 
 the medium in which debts shall be 
 paid, if it is, after all, to be left to 
 every State to declare that debts may 
 be discharged, and to prescribe how 
 they may be discharged, without any 
 payment at all? Why say that no man 
 shall be obliged to take, in discharge of 
 a debt, paper money issued by the au- 
 thority of a State, and yet say that by 
 tlie same authority the debt may be 
 discharged without any payment what- 
 ever? 
 
186 
 
 THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 
 
 We contend, that the Constitution has 
 not left its work thus uuHnished. We 
 contend, that, taking its provisions to- 
 gether, it is apparent it was intended to 
 provide for two things, intimately con- 
 nected with each other. These are, — 
 
 1. A medium for the payment of 
 debts; and, 
 
 2. A uniform manner of discharging 
 debts, when they are to be discharged 
 without payment. 
 
 The arrangement of the grants and 
 prohibitions contained in the Constitu- 
 tion is fit to be regarded on this occa- 
 sion. The grant to Congress and the 
 prohibition on the States, though they 
 are certainly to be construed together, 
 are not contained in the same clauses. 
 The powers granted to Congress are 
 enumerated one after another in the 
 eighth section ; the principal limitations 
 on tho.se powers, in the ninth section ; 
 and the prohibitions to the States, in 
 the tenth section. Xow, in order to un- 
 derstand whether any particular power 
 be exclusively vested in Congress, it is 
 necessary to read the terms of the grant, 
 together with the terms of the prohibi- 
 tion. Take an example from that power 
 of which we have been speaking, the 
 coinage power. Here the grant to Con- 
 gress is, "To coin money, regulate the 
 value thereof, and of foreign coins." 
 Now, the correlative prohibition on the 
 States, though found in another section, is 
 undoubtedly to be taken in immediate 
 connection with the foregoing, as much as 
 if it had been found in the same clause. 
 The only just reading of these provis- 
 ions, therefore, is this: " Congress shall 
 have power to coin money, regulate the 
 value thereof, and of foreign coin ; but 
 no State shall coin money, emit bills of 
 credit, or make any thing but gold and 
 silver coin a tender in payment of 
 debts." 
 
 These provisions respect the medium 
 of payment, or standard of value, and, 
 thus collated, their joint result is clear 
 and decisive. We think the result clear,' 
 also, of those provisions which respect 
 the discharge of debts without payment. 
 Collated in like manner, they stand thus: 
 '* Congress shall have power to establish 
 
 uniform laws on the subject of bank- 
 ruptcies throughout the Lnited States, 
 but no State shall pass any law impair- 
 ing the obligation of contracts." This 
 collocation cannot be objected to, if 
 they reft'r to the same subject-matter; 
 and that they do refer to the same sub- 
 ject-matter we have the authority of 
 this court for saying, because this 
 court solemnly determined, in Stirge$ 
 V. Crowninshield, that this prohibition 
 on the States did apply to systems cf 
 bankruptcy. It must be now taken, 
 therefore, that State bankrupt laws were 
 in the mind of the Convention when the 
 prohibition was adopted, and therefore 
 the grant to Congress on the subject of 
 bankrupt laws, and the prohibition to 
 the States on the same subject, are 
 properly to be taken and read Uigether; 
 and being thus read together, is not the 
 intention clear to take away from the 
 States the power of passing bankrupt 
 laws, since, while enacted by them, such 
 laws would not be uniform, and to con- 
 fer the power exclusively on Congress, 
 by whom uniform laws could be estab- 
 lished? 
 
 Suppose the order of arrangement in 
 the Constitution had been otherwise than 
 it is, and that the prohibitions to the 
 States had preceded the grants of power 
 to Congress, the two powers, when col- 
 lated, would then have read thus: " Xo 
 State shall pass any law impairing the 
 obligation of contracts; but Congress 
 may establish uniform laws on the sub- 
 ject of bankruptcies." Could any man 
 have doubted, in that case, that the 
 meaning was, that the States should not 
 pass laws discharging debts without pay- 
 ment, but that Congress might establish 
 uniform bankrupt acts? And yet this 
 inversion of the order of the clauses does 
 not alter their sense. We contend, that 
 Congress alone possesses the power of 
 establishing bankrupt laws; and al- 
 though we are aware that, in Sturges v. 
 Crowninshield, the court decided that 
 such an exclusive power could not be 
 inferred from the words of the grant in 
 the seventh section, we yet would re- 
 S}>ectfully request the bench to recon- 
 sider this point. We think it could uot 
 
THE CASE OF OGDEN AND SAUNDERS. 
 
 187 
 
 nave bean Intended that both the States 
 and general government sliould exercise 
 this power; and therefore, that a grant 
 to one implies a prohibition on the other. 
 But not to press a topic which the court 
 has already had under its consideration, 
 ■we contend, that, even without reading 
 the clauses of the Constitution in the 
 connection which we have suggested, 
 and which is believed to be the true one, 
 the prohibition in the tenth section, 
 taken by itself, does forbid the enact- 
 ment of State bankrupt laws, as applied 
 to future as well as present d«^bts. We 
 argue this from the words of the prohi- 
 bition, from the association they are 
 found in, and from the objects intended. 
 1. The words are general. The States 
 can pass no law impairing contracts; 
 that is, any contract. In the nature of 
 things a law may impair a future con- 
 tract, and therefore such contract is 
 within the protection of the Constitu- 
 tion. The words being general, it is for 
 the other side to show a limitation; and 
 this, it is submitted, they have wholly 
 failed to do, unless they shall have es- 
 tablished the doctrine that the law itself 
 is part of the contract. It may be added, 
 that the particular expression of the Con- 
 stitution is worth regarding. The thing 
 prohibited is called a law, not an act. 
 A law, in its general acceptation, is a 
 rule prescribed for future conduct, not 
 a legislative interference with existing 
 riehts. The framers of the Constitu- 
 tion would hardly have given the appel- 
 lation of law to violent invasions of 
 individual right, or individual property, 
 by acts of legislative power. Although, 
 doubtless, such acts fall within this pro- 
 hibition, yet they are prohibited also by 
 general principles, and by the constitu- 
 tions of the States, and therefore further 
 provision against such acts was not so 
 necessary as against other mischiefs. 
 
 2. The most conclusive argument, per- 
 haps, arises from the connection in which 
 the clause stands. The words of the 
 prohibition, so far as it applies to civil 
 rights, or rights of property, are, that 
 " no State shall coin money, emit bills 
 of cedit, make any thing but gold and 
 silver coin a tender in the payment of 
 
 debts, or pass any law impairing the ob- 
 ligation of contracts." The prohibition 
 of attainders, and ex post facto laws, re- 
 fers entirely to criminal proceedings, and 
 therefore should be con.sidered as stand- 
 ing by itself; but the other parts of the 
 prohibition are connected by the sub- 
 ject-matter, and ought, therefore, to be 
 construed together. Taking the words 
 thus together, according to their natural 
 connection, how is it possible to give a 
 more limited construction to the term 
 "contracts," in the last branch of the 
 sentence, than to the word "debts," in 
 that immediately preceding? Can a 
 State make any thing but gold and sil- 
 ver a tender in payment of future debts? 
 This nobody pretends. But what ground 
 is there for a distinction? No State shall 
 make any thing but gold and silver a 
 tender in the payment of debts, nor pass 
 any law impairing the obligation of con 
 tracts. Now, by what reasoning is it 
 made out that the debts here spoken of 
 are any debts, either existing or future, 
 but that the contracts spoken of are sub- 
 sisting contracts only? Such a distinc- 
 tion seems to us wholly arbitrary. We 
 see no ground for it. Suppose the arti- 
 cle, where it uses the word debtn, had 
 used the word contracts. The sense 
 would have been the same then that it 
 now is; but the identity of terms would 
 have made the nature of the distinction 
 now contended for somewhat more obvi- 
 ous. Thus altered, the clause would 
 read, that no State should make any 
 thing but gold and silver a tender in dis- 
 charge of contracts, nor pass any law im- 
 pairing the obligation of contracts; yet 
 the first of these expressions would have 
 been held to apply to all contracts, and the 
 last to subsisting contracts only. This 
 shows the consequence of what is now 
 contended for in a strong light. It is 
 certain that the substitution of the woi-d 
 contracts for debts would not alter the 
 sense; and an argument that could not 
 be sustained, if such substitution were 
 made, cannot be sustained now. We 
 maintain, therefore, that, if tender laws 
 may not be made for future debts, neitlier 
 can bankrupt laws be made for future 
 contracts. All the arguments used here 
 
188 
 
 THE CASE OF OGDEN AXD SAUNDERS. 
 
 may be applied with equal force to ten- 
 der laws for future debts. It may be 
 said, for instance, that, when it speaks 
 of debts, the Constitution means existing 
 debts, and not mere possibilities of fu- 
 ture debt; that the object was to pre- 
 serve vested rights; and that if a man, 
 after a tender law had passed, had con- 
 tracted a debt, the manner in which that 
 tender law authorized that debt to be 
 discharged became part of the contract, 
 and that the whole debt, or whole obli- 
 gation, was thus qualified by the pre- 
 existing law, and was no more than a 
 contract to deliver so much paper money, 
 or whatever other article might be made 
 a tender, as the original bargain ex- 
 pressed. Arguments of this sort will 
 not be found wanting in favor of tender 
 laws, if the court yield to similar argu- 
 ments in favor of bankrupt laws. 
 
 These several prohibitions of the Con- 
 stitution stand in the same paragraph; 
 they have the same purpose, and were 
 introduced for the same object; they are 
 expressed in words of similar import, in 
 grammar, and in sense ; they are subject 
 to the same construction, and we think 
 no reason has yet been given for impos- 
 ing an important restriction on one part 
 of them, which does not equally show 
 that the same restriction might be im- 
 posed also on the other part. 
 
 We have already endeavored to main- 
 tain, that one great political object in- 
 tended by the Constitution would be 
 defeated, if this construction were al- 
 lowed to prevail. As an object of polit- 
 ical regulation, it was not important to 
 prevent the States from passing bank- 
 rupt laws applicable to present debts, 
 while the power was left to them in re- 
 gard to future debts; nor was it at all 
 important, in a political point of view, 
 to prohibit tender laws as to future 
 debts, while it was yet left to tiie States 
 to pass laws for the discharge of sucli 
 debts, which, after all, are little differ- 
 ent in principle from tender laws. Look 
 at the law before the com-t in this view. 
 
 It provides, that, if the debtor will sur- 
 render, offer, or tender to trustees for 
 the benefit of his creditors, all his estate 
 and effects, he shall be discharged from 
 all his debts. If it had authorized a ten- 
 der of any thing but money to any one 
 creditor, though it were of a value equal 
 to the debt, and thereupon provided for a 
 discharge, it would have been clearly in- 
 valid. Yet it is maintained to be go<jil, 
 merely because it is made for all creil- 
 itors, and seeks a discharge from all 
 debts; although the thing tendered may 
 not be equivalent to a sliilling in the 
 pound of those debts. This shows, 
 again, very clearly, how the Constitu- 
 tion has failed of its pur2X)se, if, having 
 in terms prohibited all tender laws, and 
 taken so much pains to establish a uni- 
 form medium of paj'ment, it has yet left 
 the States the power of discliarging 
 debts, as they may see fit, without any 
 payment at all. 
 
 To recapitulate what has been said, 
 we maintain, first, that the Constitu- 
 tion, by its grants to Congress and its 
 prohibitions on the States, has sought 
 to establish one uniform standard of 
 value, or medium of payment. Second, 
 that, by like means, it has endeavored 
 to provide for one uniform mode of dis- 
 charffing debts, when thev are to be dis- 
 charged without payment. Third, that 
 these objects are connected, and that the 
 first loses much of its importance, if the 
 last, also, be not accomplished. Fourth, 
 that, reading the grant to Congress and 
 the prohibition on the States together, 
 the inference is strong that the Consti- 
 tution intended to confer an exclusive 
 power to pass bankrupt laws on Ci n- 
 gress. Fifth, that the prohibition iu the 
 tenth section reaches to all contracts, 
 existing or future, in the same way that 
 the other prohibition in the same sec- 
 tion extends to all debts existing or 
 future. Sixthly, that, upon any other 
 construction, one great political object 
 of the Constitution will fail of its accom- 
 plishmeut. 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 AN AKGUMENT ON THE TRIAL OF JOHN FRANCIS KNAPP, FOR THE MUR. 
 DER OF JOSEPH WHITE, OF SALEM, IN ESSEX COUNTY, MASSACUUSETrS, 
 ON THE NIGHT OF THE 6th OF APRIL, 1830. 
 
 [The following arffument was addressed 
 to the jury at a trial for a remarkable mur- 
 der. A more extraordinary case never oc- 
 curred in this country, nor is it equalled in 
 gtran<re interest by any trial in the French 
 Causes C€lebres or the English State Trials. 
 Deep sensation and intense curiosity were 
 excited through the whole country, at the 
 time of the occurrence of the event, not 
 only by the atrocity of the crime, but by 
 the position of the victim, and the romantic 
 incidents in the detection and fate of the 
 assassin and his accomplices. 
 
 The following outline of the facts will 
 assist the reader to understand the bearings 
 of the argument. 
 
 Joseph AVhite, Esq. was found murdered 
 in his bed, in his mansion-house, on the 
 morning of the 7th of April, 1830. He was 
 a wealtliy merchant of Salem, eighty-two 
 years of age, and had for many years given 
 up active business. His servant-man rose 
 that morning at six o'clock, and on going 
 down into the kitchen, and opening the 
 shutters of the window, saw that the back 
 window of the east parlor was open, and 
 that a i)lank was raised to the window from 
 the back yard ; he then went into the par- 
 lor, but saw no trace of any person having 
 been there. He went to the apartment of 
 the maid-servant, and told her, and then 
 into Mr. White's chamber by its back door, 
 and saw that the door of his chamber, lead- 
 ing into the front entry, was open. On ap- 
 proaching the bed, he found the bed-clothes 
 turned down, and Mr. White dead, his coun- 
 tenance pallid, and his night-clothes and bed 
 drenched in V)lood. He hastened to the 
 neighboring houses to make known the 
 event. He and the maid-servant were 
 the onlj" persons who slept in the liouse 
 that night, except Mr. White himself, whose 
 niece, Mrs. Beckford, his house-keeper, was 
 then absent on a visit to her daughter, at 
 Wenhani. 
 
 Tiie physicians and the coroner's jury, who 
 were called to examine the body, found on 
 
 it thirteen deep stabs, made as if by a sbaq) 
 dirk or poniard, and the appearance of a 
 heavy blow on the left temple, which had 
 fractured the skull, but not broken the skin. 
 The body was cold, and appeared to have 
 been lifeless many hours. 
 
 On examining the apartments of the 
 house, it did not appear that any valuable 
 articles had been taken, or the house ran- 
 sacked for them ; there was a rouleau of 
 doubloons in an iron chest in his chamber, 
 and costly plate in other apartments, none 
 of which was missing. 
 
 The perpetration of such an atrocious 
 crime, in the most populous and central 
 part of the town and in the most compactly 
 built street, and under circumstances indi- 
 cating the utmost coolness, deliberation, and 
 audacity, deeply agitated and aroused the 
 whole community; ingenuity was bafHed in 
 attempting even to conjecture a motire for 
 the deed; and all the citizens were led to 
 fear that the same fate might await them 
 in the defenceless and helpless hours of 
 slumber. For several days, persons passing 
 through the streets might hear the continual 
 sound of the hammer, while carpenters and 
 smitiis were fixing bolts to doors and fasten- 
 ings to windows. Many, for defence, fur- 
 nished themselves with cutlasses, fire-arms, 
 and watch-dogs. Large rewards for the 
 detection of the author or authors of the 
 murder were offered by the heirs of the de- 
 ceased, by the selectmen of the town, and 
 by the Governor of the State. The citi- 
 zens held a i)ublic meeting, and appointed 
 a Committee of Vigilance, of twenty-seven 
 members, to make all possible exertions to 
 ferret out the offenders. 
 
 While the public mind was thus excited 
 and anxious, it was amiounced that a bold 
 attempt at highway robbery was made in 
 Weniiam, by tliree footpads, on Josepii J. 
 Knajjp, Jr. and John Francis Knapj), on the 
 evening of the 27tli of April, while they 
 were returning in a chaise from Salem to 
 their residence in Wenham. They ap 
 
lyo 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITK. 
 
 peared V)cfore the investigating committee, 
 and testified that, after nine o'clock, near 
 the Wenham Pond, they discovered three 
 men approaching. One came near, seized 
 the bridle, and stopped the horse, while the 
 other two came, one on each side, and seized 
 a trunk in the bottom of the chaise. Frank 
 Knapp drew a sword from his cane and 
 made a thrust at one, and Joseph with the 
 but-end of his whip gave the other a heavy 
 blow icross the face. This bold resistance 
 made them fall back. Joseph sprung from 
 the chaise to assail the robbers. One of them 
 then gave a shrill whistle, when they fled, 
 and, leaping over the wall, were soon lost 
 in the darkness. One had a weapon like an 
 ivor}' dirk-handle, was clail in a sailor's 
 short jacket, cap. and had whiskers; an- 
 other wore a long coat, with bright buttons ; 
 all three were good-sized men. Frank, too, 
 sprung from the chaise, and pursued with 
 vigor, but all in vain. 
 
 The account of this unusual and bold 
 attempt at robbery, thus given by the 
 Knapps, was inmiediately published in the 
 Salem newspapers, with the editorial re- 
 mark, that "these gentlemen are well 
 known in this town, and tlieir respectability 
 and veracity are not questioned by any of 
 our citizens." 
 
 Not the slightest clew to the murder could 
 be found for several weeks, and the mystery 
 seemed to be impenetrable. At length a 
 rumor reached the ear of the committee 
 that a prisoner in the jail at New Bedford, 
 seventy miles from Salem, confined there 
 on a charge of shoplifting, had intimated 
 that he could make important disclosures. 
 A confidential messenger was ijnmediately 
 sent, to ascertain what he knew on the sub- 
 ject. The prisoner's name was Hatch ; he 
 had been committed before the murder. 
 He stated that, some months before the 
 murder, while he was at large, he had asso- 
 ciated in Salem with Richard Crownin- 
 shield, Jr.. of Danvers, and had often heard 
 Crowninshield express his intention to de- 
 stroy the life of Mr. White. Crowninshield 
 was a young man, of bad reputation ; though 
 he had never been convicted of any offence, 
 lie was strongly suspected of several hei- 
 nous robljeries. He was of dark and re- 
 served deportment, temperate and wicked, 
 daring and war}', subtle and obtlurate, of 
 great adroitness, boldness, and self-com- 
 mand. He had for several years frequented 
 the haunts of vice in Salem; and though he 
 was often spoken of as a dangerous man, 
 his j)erson was known to few, for he never 
 walked the streets by daylight. Among 
 his few associates he was a leader and a 
 desi)Ot. 
 
 The disclosures of Hatch received credit. 
 When the Supreme Court met at Ijjswich, 
 the Attorney-General, Morton, moved for a 
 writ oi habeas corpus ad testif.,&w\ Hatch was 
 carried in chains from New Bedford before 
 tile grand jury, and ou his tcslimotiy au in- 
 
 dictment was found against Crowninshield 
 Other witnesses testified that, on the night 
 of the murder, his brother, George Crown- 
 insliield. Colonel Benjamin Selman.of Mar- 
 blehead, and Daniel Chase, of Lynn, were 
 together in Salem, at a gambling-house 
 usually frequented by Richard ; ♦hese were 
 indicted as accomplices in the crime. They 
 were ail arrested on the 2d of May, ar- 
 raigned on the indictment, and committed 
 to prison to await the sitting of a court tha: 
 should have jurisdiction of the offence. 
 
 Tile Committee of Vigilance, howevei 
 continued to hold frequent meetings in 
 ortler to discover further proof, for it was 
 doubted by many whether the evidence al- 
 ready obtained would be sufficient to con- 
 vict the accused. 
 
 A fortnight afterwards, on the loth of 
 May, Captain Joseph J. Knapp, a ship- 
 master and merchant, a man of good 
 character, received by mail the following 
 letter : — 
 
 Charles Grakt, Jr., to Joseph J. Knapp. 
 
 " Belfagt, Afay 12, 1830. 
 
 "Dear Sir, — I have taken the pen at this 
 time to address au utter stranger, aud, strange 
 as it may seem to you, it is for the purpose of 
 requesting the loan of tliree hundred and fifty 
 dollars, for which I can give you no security but 
 my word, and in this case consider this to be 
 sufficient. My call for money at this time is 
 pressing, or I would not trouble you; but with 
 that sum, I have the prospect of turning it to so 
 much advantage, as to be able to refund it with 
 interest in the course of six months. At all 
 events, I think it will be for your interest to 
 comjily with my request, and that immediately. 
 — that is, not "to put off any longer tlian you 
 receive this. Then set down and enclose me the 
 money with as much despatcli as possible, for 
 vour own interest. This, .Sir. is my advice; aud 
 If you do not comply with it. the short period 
 between now and November will convince you 
 that you have denied a request, the granting of 
 which will never injure you, the refusal of which 
 will ruin you. Are vou surprised at this asser- 
 tion — rest assured that I make it, reserving to 
 myself tlie reasons and a series of facts, which 
 are founded on such a bottom as will bid defiance 
 to proj)erty or quality. It is useless for me to 
 enter into a discussion of facts which must in- 
 evitably harrow up your soul. No, I will men'lj 
 tell you that I am acquainted with your l)ro'lie: 
 Franklin, and also the business that he wai 
 transacting for you on the '2d of April last; an J 
 that I think that yon was very extravai^ant in 
 giving one thousand dollars to the persini thai 
 would execute the business for you. Hut you 
 know best about that ; you see that such things 
 will leak out. To conclude, Sir. I will inform 
 you that there is a gentleman of my acqiiaiut- 
 auce in Salem, that will observe that you do not 
 have town before the first of June, giving you 
 sutlicient time between now and then to comply 
 with my request: and if I do not receive a line 
 from you, together with the above sum, before 
 the 2"2d of this month, I shall wait upon you 
 with an assistant. I have said enough to con- 
 viuce you of my knowledge, aud merely iufera 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 lyj 
 
 you that vou can, when you answer, be as brief 
 as possibfe. 
 
 " Direct yours to 
 "Charles Gram, Jr., of Prospect, Maine." 
 
 Thii letter was an unintcllij^ible enigma 
 to Captain Knapj) ; he knew no man of tiio 
 name of Cliarles Grant, Jr., and iiad no ac- 
 quaintance at Belfast, a town in Maine, two 
 hundred miles distant from Salem. After 
 poring over it in vain, he handed it to his 
 son, Nathaniel Diipiien Knapp, a young 
 lawyer; to him also the letter was an inex- 
 plicable riddle. The receiving of such a 
 '.hieatening letter, at a time when so many 
 felt insecure, and were apprehensive of dan- 
 ger, demanded their attention. Captain 
 Knapp and his son Phippen, therefore, con- 
 cluded to ride to Wenhani, seven miles dis- 
 tant, and show the letter to Captain Knapp's 
 other two sons, Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. and 
 John Francis Knapp, who wi're then resid- 
 ing at Wenhani with Mrs. Beckford, the 
 niece and late house-keeper of Mr. White, 
 and the mother of the wife of J. J. Knapp, 
 Jr. The latter perused the letter, told his 
 father it " contained a devilish lot of trash," 
 and requested him to hand it to the Com- 
 mittee of Vigilance. Captain Knapp, on 
 his return to Salem that evening, accord- 
 ingly delivered the letter to the chairman of 
 the Committee. 
 
 The next day J. J. Knapp, Jr. went to 
 Salem, and requested one of his friends to 
 drop into the Salem post-office the two fol- 
 lowing pseudonymous letters. 
 
 " May 13, 18.30. 
 "Gentlemen of the Co.mmittee of Vig- 
 ilance, — Hearing that you have taken up four 
 young men on suspicion of being concerned in 
 the murder of Mr. White, I think it time to in- 
 form you that Steven White came to me one 
 night and told me, if I would remove tlie old 
 gentleman, lie would give me five tiioiisaiid dol- 
 lars ; he said he was afraid he would alter his 
 will if he lived any longer. I told him I would 
 do it, but I was afeared to go into the house, so 
 he said he would go with me, that he would try 
 to get into the house in the evening and open 
 the window, would then go home and go to bed 
 and meet me again about eleven. I found him, 
 and we both went into his chamber. I struck 
 him on the head with a heavy piece of lead, and 
 then stabbed him with a dirk; he made the 
 finishing strokes with another. He promised to 
 eend nie the money next evening, and has not 
 •e'lt it vet which is the reason that I mention 
 tLis. 
 
 " Yours, &c., 
 
 "Grant." 
 
 This letter was directed on the outside to 
 the " Hon. Gideon Barstow, Salem," and 
 put into the post-office on Sunday evening, 
 May 16, 1830. 
 
 ''Lynn, May 12, 1830. 
 " Mr. White will send the $5,000. or a part 
 of it, before to-morrow uigbt, or suffer the pain- 
 ful consequences. 
 
 " N. Claxton, 4th." 
 
 This letter was addressed to the " Hon. 
 Stephen White. Salem, Mass.," and was 
 also jiut into the post-oflice in Salem on 
 Sunday evening. 
 
 When Knapp delivered these letters to 
 his friend, he said his father had received 
 an anonymous letter, and " What I want 
 you for is to put these in the post-office in 
 order to nip this silly affair in the hud." 
 
 The Hon. Stephen White, mentioned in 
 these letters, was a nephew of Josepii White, 
 and the legatee of the principal pH/* .f 'lia 
 large jiroperty. 
 
 When the Committee of Vigilance ri. a i 
 and considered the letter, purporting to l.e 
 signed by Cliarles Grant, Jr., which had been 
 delivereil to them by Captain Knapp, they 
 were impressed with the belief that it con- 
 tained a clew which might lead to important 
 disclosures. As they had spared no pains 
 or expense in their investigations, they im- 
 mediately despatched a discreet messenger 
 to Prospect, in Maine; he explained his busi- 
 ness confidentially to the postmaster there, 
 deposited a letter addressed to Charles 
 Grant, Jr., and awaited the call of Grant 
 to receive it. He soon called for it, when 
 an officer, stationed in the house, stepped 
 forward and arrested Grant. On examin- 
 ing him, it appeared that his true name was 
 Palmer, a young man of genteel appear- 
 ance, resident in the adjoining town of Bel- 
 fast. He had been a convict in Maine, and 
 had served a term in the State's prison in 
 that State. Conscious that the circum- 
 stances justified the belief that he had had 
 a hand in the murder, he readily made 
 known, while he protested his own inno- 
 cence, that he could unfold the whole mys- 
 tery. He then disclosed that he had been 
 an associate of R. Crowninshield, Jr. and 
 George Crowninshield ; had spent part of 
 the winter at Danvers and Salem, under the 
 name of Carr; part of the time he had been 
 their inmate, concealed in their father's 
 house in Danvers; that on the 2d of April 
 he saw from the windows of the house 
 Frank Knapp and a young man named 
 Allen ride up to the house; that George 
 walked away with Frank, and Richard with 
 Allen ; that on their return, George told 
 Richard that Frank wished them to under- 
 take to kill Mr. White, and that J. J. Knapp, 
 Jr. would jiay one thousand dollars for the 
 job. They proposed various modes of e.xe- 
 cuting it, and asked Paliner to be concerned, 
 which he declined. George said the house- 
 keeper would be away at the time ; that the 
 object of Joseph J. Knapp, Jr vas to de- 
 stroy the will, because it gave most of the 
 property to Stephen White; that Joseph J. 
 Knapp, Jr. was first to destroy the will ; 
 that he could get from the house-ki-eper the 
 keys of the iron chest in which it was kept ; 
 that Frank called again the s.'ime day, in a 
 chaise, and rode away with Richard ; and 
 that on the night of tho murder Palmv 
 stayed at the Half-way House, in Lynn. 
 
192 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 The messenger, on obtaininor this dis- 
 closure from Palmer, without delay com- 
 municated it by mail to the Committee, and 
 on the 2t)iii of May, a warrant was issued 
 against Joseph J. Kna{)p, Jr. and John 
 Francis Knapp, and they were taken into 
 custody at ^Venham, where they were re- 
 Biding in the fanuly of Mrs. Beckford, 
 mother of the wife of Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. 
 They were then imprisoned to await the 
 arrival of Palmer, for their examination. 
 
 The two Knapps were young ship- 
 masters, of a resi)ectable family. 
 
 Joseph J. Kiia])p, Jr., on the third day of 
 his imprisonment, made a full confession 
 that he projected tiie murder. He knew 
 that yir. Wiiite had made his will, and given 
 to Mrs. Beckford a legacy of fifteen thou- 
 sand dollars ; but if he died without leaving 
 a will, lie e.xpccted she would inherit nearly 
 two hundred thousand dollars. In Feb- 
 ruary he made known to his brother his 
 desire to make way with Mr. White, in- 
 tending first to abstract and destroy the 
 will. Frank agreed to employ an assassin, 
 and negotiated with R. Crowninshicld, Jr., 
 who agreed to do the deed for a reward of 
 one thousand dollars; Joseph agreed to pay 
 that sum, and, as he had access to the house 
 at his pleasure, he was to unbar and un- 
 fasten the back window, so that Crownin- 
 ehield might gain easy entrance. Four dixys 
 before the murder, while they were deliber- 
 ating on the mode of compassing it, he went 
 into Mr. White's chamber, and, finding the 
 key in the iron cliest, unlocked it, took the 
 will, put it in his cliaise-box, covered it with 
 hay, carried it to Wenham, kept it till after 
 the murder, and then burned it. After se- 
 curing the will, he gave notice to Crownin- 
 shield that all was ready. In the evening 
 of that day lie had a meeting with Crownin- 
 shield at the centre of the common, who 
 showed him a bludgeon and dagger, with 
 which the murder was to be committed. 
 Knapp asked him if he meant to do it that 
 night ; C^rowninsiiield s.-iid he thought not, 
 he did not feel like it ; Knapp then went to 
 Wenham. Knapp ascertained on Sunday, 
 the 4th of April, that Mr. White had gone 
 to take tea witii a relative in Clicstnut 
 Street. Crowninshicld intended to dirk 
 liim on his way home in the evening, but 
 Mr. White returned before dark. It was 
 next arranged for the night of the Gth, and 
 Knapp was on some pretext to prevail on 
 Mrs. Beckford to visit her daughters at 
 Wenham, and to spend the night there. 
 He said that, all preparations being thus 
 comi)letc. Crowninshield and Frank met 
 about ten o'clock in the evening of the 0th, 
 in Brown Street, which passes the rear of 
 tiie garden of Mr. White, and stood some 
 time in a spot from which they could ob- 
 serve the movements in the house, and ])er- 
 ceive when Mr. White and his two servants 
 retired to bed. Crowninshield requested 
 Frank to go home; he did so, but soon re- 
 
 turned to the same spot. Crowninshitld, ic 
 the mean time, had started and passed round 
 through Newbury Street and Esses Street 
 to tlie front of the house, entered the postern 
 gate, passed to the rear of the house, placed 
 a plank against the liouse, climbed to the 
 window, opened it, entered the house alone, 
 passed up the staircase, opened the door of 
 the sleeping-chamber, approached the bed- 
 side, gave Mr. Wliite a heavy and mortal blow- 
 on the head with a bludgeon, and then w ith 
 a dirk gave him many stabs in his body. 
 Crowninshield said, that, after he had " done 
 for the old man," he put his fingers on his 
 pulse to make certain he was dead. He 
 then retired from the house, hurried back 
 through Brown Street, where he met Frank, 
 waiting to learn the event. Crowninshield 
 ran down Howard Street, a solitary place, 
 and hid the club under the steps of a meet- 
 ing-liouse. He then went home to Danvers. 
 
 .Joscj)h confessed further that the ac- 
 count of the Wenham robbery, on the 'JTth 
 of April, was a sheer fabrication. After 
 the murier Crowninshield went to Wen- 
 ham in company with Frank to call fi>r the 
 one thousand dollars. He was not able to 
 pay the whole, but gave him one hundred 
 five-franc pieces. Crowninshield related to 
 him the particulars of the murder, told him 
 where the club was hid, and said he was 
 sorry Joseph had not got the right will, for 
 if he had known there was another, he 
 would have got it. Joseph sent Frank 
 afterwards to find and destroy the club, but 
 he said he could not find it. When Joseph 
 made the confession, he told the place 
 where the club was concealed, and it was 
 there found ; it was heavy, made of hick- 
 ory, twenty-two and a half inches long. <>f 
 a smooth surface and large oval head, 
 loaded with lead, and of a form adapted to 
 give a mortal blow on the skull without 
 breaking the skin ; the handle was suited 
 for a firm grasp. Crowninshicld said he 
 turned it in a lathe. Joseph admitted he 
 wrote the two anonymous letters. 
 
 Crowninshield had hitherto maintained 
 a stoical composure of feeling; but wlien 
 he was informed of Knapp's arrest, his 
 knees smote beneath him, the sweat started 
 out on his stern and pallid face, and he sub- 
 sided upon his bunk. 
 
 Palmer was brought to Salem in irons 
 on the od of June, and committed to prison. 
 Crowninshield saw him tiiken from the car- 
 riage. He w as put in the cell directly uiuler 
 that in which Crowninshield was kept. 
 Several members of the Committee entered 
 Palmer's cell to talk with him ; while they 
 were talking, they lieard a loud whistle, 
 and, on looking up, saw that Crowninshield 
 liad i>icked away the mortar from the crev- 
 ice between the blocks of the granite rioor 
 of his cell. After the loud whistle, he cried 
 out," Palmer! Palmer!" and soon let down 
 a string, to which were tied a pencil and a 
 slip of paper. Two lines of poetry were 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 193 
 
 .vritten nn the p.iper, in order tliat, if Palmer 
 was really there, he should make it known 
 by capping the verses Palmer shrunk 
 away into a corner, and was soon trans- 
 ferred to another cell. He seemed to stand 
 in awe of Crowninshield. 
 
 On the liitli of June a quantity of stolen 
 goods was found concealed in tlie barn of 
 Crowninshield, in consequence of informa- 
 tion from Palmer. 
 
 Crowninshield, thus finding the proofs of 
 hi? guilt and depravity thicken, on the 1.5th 
 of June committed suicide by hanging him- 
 self to the bars of his cell with a handker- 
 chief. He left letters to his father and 
 brother, expressing in general terms the 
 viciousness of his life, and his hopelessness 
 of escape from punishment. \Vhen his 
 associates in guilt heard his fate, they said 
 it was not unexpected by them, for they 
 had often lieard him say he would never 
 live to submit to an ignominious punish- 
 nient. 
 
 A special term of the Supreme Court was 
 held .It Salem on the 20tli of July, for the 
 trial of the prisoners charged with the 
 murder; it continued in session till the 20th 
 of August, with a few days' intermission. 
 An indictment for the murder was found 
 agjiinst John Francis Knapp, as principal, 
 and Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. and George 
 Crowninshield, as accessories. Selinan and 
 Chase were discharged by the Attorney- 
 General. 
 
 The principal, John Francis Knapp, was 
 first put on trial. As the law then stood, 
 an accessory in a murder could not be tried 
 until a principal had been convicted. He 
 was defended by Messrs. Franklin Dexter 
 and William H. Gardiner, advocates of high 
 reputation for ability and eloquence ; the 
 trial was long and arduous, and the wit- 
 nesses numerous. His brother Joseph, who 
 had made a full confession, on the govern- 
 ment's promise of impunity if he would in 
 good faith tesiify the truth, was brought 
 into court, called to the stand as a witness, 
 but declined to testify. To convict the 
 prisoner, it was necessary for the govern- 
 ment to prove that he was present, actually 
 or constructively, as an aider or abettor in 
 the murder. The evidence was strong that 
 there was a conspiracy to commit the mur- 
 der, that the prisoner was one of the con- 
 spirators, that at the time of the murder he 
 was in Brown Street at the rear of Mr. 
 White's garden, and the jury were satisfied 
 that he was in that place to aid and abet in 
 the murder, ready to afford assistance, if 
 necessary. He was convicted. 
 
 Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. was afterwards tried 
 as an accessory before the fact, and con- 
 victed. 
 
 George Crowninshield proved an alibi, and 
 was discharged. 
 
 The execution of John Francis Knapp and 
 Joseph J. Knapp, Jr. closed the tragedy. 
 
 if Joseph, after turning State's evidence. 
 
 13 
 
 had not changed his mind, neither he nor 
 his brother, nor any of tlie conspirators, 
 could have been convicted ; if he had testi- 
 fied, and disclosed the whole truth, it would 
 have apj)eared that John Francis Knai)p 
 was in Brown Street, not to render assist- 
 ance to tlie assassin ; but that Crownin- 
 shield, when he started to commit the 
 murder, requested Frank to go home and 
 go to bed ; that Frank did go home, retire 
 to bed, soon after arose, secretly left his 
 father's house, and hastened to Brown 
 Street, to await the coming out of the as- 
 sassin, in order to learn whether the deed 
 was accomplished, and all the particulars. 
 If Frank had not been convicted as i)rinei- 
 pal, none of the accessories could by law 
 have been convicted. Joseph would not 
 have been even tried, for the government 
 stipulated, that, if he would be a witness 
 for the State, he should go clear. 
 
 The whole history of this occurrence is 
 of romantic interest. The murder itself, 
 the corpus delicti, was strange ; planned with 
 deliberation and sagacity, and executed 
 with firmness and vigor. While conjecture 
 was baffled in ascertaining either the motive 
 or the perpetrator, it was certain that the 
 assassin iiad acted upon design, and not at 
 random. He must have had knowledge of 
 the house, for the window had been unfas- 
 tened from within. He had entered stealth- 
 ily, threaded his way in silence through the 
 apartments, corridors, and staircases, and 
 coolly given the mortal blow. To make 
 assurance doubly sure, he inflicted many 
 fatal stabs, " the least a death to nature," 
 and stayed not his hand till he had deliber- 
 ately felt the pulse of his victim, to make- 
 certain that life was extinct. 
 
 It was strange that Crowninshield, the 
 real assassin, should have been indicted and 
 arrested on the testimony of Hatch, who- 
 was himself in prison, in a distant part of 
 the State, at the time of the nmrder, and. 
 had no actual knowledge on the subject. 
 
 It was very strange that J. J. Knapp, Jr. 
 sliould have been the instrument of bring- 
 ing to light the mystery of the whole mur- 
 derous conspiracy ; for when he received 
 from the hand of his father the threatening 
 letter of Palmer, consciousness of guilt so 
 confounded his faculties, that, instead oi 
 destroying it, he stupidly handed it back 
 and requested his father to deliver it to th( 
 Committee of Vigilance. 
 
 It was strange that the murder should 
 have been committed on a mistake in law. 
 Josepli, some time previous to the murder, 
 had maiie inquiry how Mr. White's estate 
 would be distributed in case he died with- 
 out a will, and had been erroneously told 
 that Mrs. Beckford, his mother-in-law, the 
 sole issue and representative of a deceased 
 sister of Mr. White, would inherit half of 
 the estate, and that the four children anc' 
 representatives of a deceased brother of 
 Mr. White, of whom the Hon. Stephei 
 
194 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 White was one, would inherit tlie other 
 lialf. Jost'iili had privately read the will, 
 and knew tliat Mr. Wiiite had bequeathed 
 to Mrs. Beckford much less than half. 
 
 It was strange that the murder should 
 have been coinniitted on a mistake in fact 
 also. Josejjh furtivt-ly abstracted a will, 
 and expected Mr. White would die intes- 
 tate ; but, after the decease, tht will, the 
 last will, was foflnd by his heirs in its 
 proper place ; and it <^'ould never have been 
 known, or conjectured, without the aid of 
 Joseph's confession, that he had made either 
 of those blunders. 
 
 Finally, it was a stranp:e fact that Knapp 
 should, on the night following the murder, 
 have watched with the mangled corpse, and 
 at the funeral followed the hearse as one of 
 the chief mourners, without betraying on 
 either occasion the slightest emotion which 
 could awaken a suspicion of his guilt. 
 
 The following note was prefixed to this 
 argument in the former edition : — 
 
 Mr. White, a highly respectable and 
 
 wealthy citizen of Salem, about eighty 
 years of age, was found, on the morning of 
 the 7th of April, 1S."]U, in his bed, nmr- 
 dcred, under such circumstances as to cre- 
 ate a strong sensation in that town and 
 throughout the community. 
 
 Richard Crowninshield, George Crownin- 
 Bhield, Joseph J. Knapp, and John F. Knapp 
 were, a few weeks after, arrested on a 
 charge of having perpetrated the murder, 
 and committed for trial. Joseph J. Knapp, 
 Boon after, under the promise of favor from 
 government, made a full confession of the 
 crime and the circumstances attending it. 
 In a few days after this disclosure was 
 made, Richard Crowninshield, who was sup- 
 posed to have been the principal assassin, 
 committed suicide. 
 
 A special session of the Supreme Court 
 was ordered by the legislature, for the trial 
 of the prisoners, at Salem, in July. At 
 that time, John F. Knapp was indicted as 
 principal in the murder, and George Crown- 
 inshit'ld and Joseph J. Knapp as accessories. 
 
 On account of the death of Cliief Justice 
 Parker, which occurred on the 2thh of July, 
 the court adjourned to Tuesday, the third 
 day of August, when it i)roceeded in the 
 trial of John F. Knapp. Joseph J. Knapp, 
 being called upon, refused to testify, and the 
 pledge of the government was withdrawn. 
 
 At the request of the prosecuting otKcers 
 of the government, Mr. Webster appeared 
 as counsel, and assisted in the trial. 
 
 .Mr. Franklin Dexter addressed the jury 
 on behalf of the prisoner, and was suc- 
 ceeded by Mr. Webster in the following 
 speech.] 
 
 I AM little accustomed, Gentlemen, to 
 the part which I am now att4Mnpting to 
 
 perform. Hardly more than once or 
 twice has it happened to me to be cou- 
 cerned on the side of the goveiumenl in 
 any criminal prosecution whatever ; and 
 never, until the present occasion, in any 
 ca.se affecting life. 
 
 But I very much regret that it should 
 have been thought necessary to suggest 
 to you that I am brought here to " hurry 
 you against the law and beyond the evi- 
 dence.'' I hope I have, too much regard 
 for justice, and too much respect for my 
 own character, to attempt either; and 
 were I to make such attempt, I am sure 
 that in this court nothing can be carred 
 against the law, and that gentlemen, in- 
 telligent and just as you are, are not, by 
 any power, to be hurried beyond the evi- 
 dence. Though I could well have wLshed 
 to shun this occasion, I have not felt at 
 liberty to withhold my professional as- 
 sistance, when it is suppcsed that I may 
 be in some degree useful in investigat- 
 ing and discovering the trtith respecting 
 this most extraordinary murder. It has 
 seemed to be a duty incumbent on me, 
 as on every other citizen, to do my best 
 and my utmost to bring to light the per- 
 petrators of this crime. Against the 
 prisoner at the bar, as an mdividual, I 
 cannot have the slightest prejudice. I 
 would not do him the smallest injury or 
 injustice. But I do not affect to be in- 
 different to the discovery and the pun- 
 ishment of this deep guilt. I cheerfully 
 share in the opprobrium, how great so- 
 ever it may be, which is cast on those 
 who feel and manifest an anxious con- 
 cern that all who had a part in planning, 
 or a hand in executing, this deed of 
 midnight assassuiation, may be brought 
 to answer for their enormous crime at 
 the bar of public justice. 
 
 Gentlemen, it is a most extraordinary 
 case. In some respects, it has hardly a 
 precedent anywhere; certainly none in 
 our New England history. This bloody 
 drama exhibited no suddenly excited, 
 ungovernable rage. The actors in it 
 were not stirprised by any lion-like 
 temptation springing upon their vir- 
 tue, and overcoming it, before resistr 
 ance could begin. Nor did they do 
 the deed to glut savage vengeance, or 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 195 
 
 satiate long-settled and deadly hate. It 
 was a cool, calculating, money-making 
 murder. It was all " hire and salary, 
 not revenge." It was the weighing of 
 money against life; the counting out of 
 so many pieces of silver against so many 
 ounces of blood. 
 
 An aged man, without an enemy in 
 the world, in his own house, and in his 
 own bed, is made the victim of a butch- 
 erly murder, for mere pay. Truly, 
 here is a new lesson for painters and po- 
 ets. Whoever shall hereafter draw the 
 portrait of murder, if he will show it as 
 it has been exhibited, where such ex- 
 ample was last to have been looked for, 
 in the very bosom of our Xew England 
 society, let him not give it the gi'im visage 
 of Moloch, the brow knitted by revenge, 
 the face black with settled hate, and the 
 bloodshot eye emitting livid fires of 
 malice. Let him draw, rather, a deco- 
 rous, smooth-faced, bloodless demon; a 
 picture in repose, rather than in action; 
 not so much an example of human na- 
 ture in its depravity, and in its parox- 
 ysms of crime, as an infernal being, 
 a fiend, in the ordinary display and de- 
 velopment of his character. 
 
 The deed was executed with a degree 
 of self-possession and steadiness equal 
 to the wickedness with which it was 
 planned. The circumstances now clearly 
 in evidence spread out the whole scene 
 before us. Deep sleep had fallen on 
 the destined victim, and on all beneath 
 his roof. A healthful old man, to whom 
 sleep was sweet, the first sound slum- 
 bers of the night held him in their sof'^ 
 but strong embrace. The assassin en- 
 ters, through the window already pre- 
 pared, into an unoccupied apartment. 
 With noiseless foot he paces the lonely 
 hall, half lighted by the moon ; he winds 
 up the ascent of the stairs, and reaches 
 *he door of the chamber. Of this, he 
 moves the lock, by soft and continued 
 pressure, till it tarns on its hinges with- 
 out noise; and he enters, and beholds 
 his victim before him. The room is 
 uncommonly open to the admission of 
 light. The face of the innocent sleeper 
 is turned from the murderer, and the 
 beams of the moon, resting on the gray 
 
 locks of his aged temple, show him 
 where to strike. The fatal blow is 
 given! and the victim passes, without 
 a struggle or a motion, from the repose 
 of sleep to the repose of death ! " It is 
 the assassin's purpose to make suro 
 work ; and he plies the dagger, though 
 it is obvious that life has been destroyed 
 by the blow of the bludgeon. He even 
 raises the aged arm, that he may not 
 fail in his aim at the heart, and replaces 
 it again over the wounds of the poniard ! 
 To finish the picture, he explores the 
 wrist for the pulse! He feels for it, and 
 ascertains that it beats no longer ! It is 
 accomplished. The deed is done. He 
 retreats, retraces his steps to the win- 
 dow, passes out through it as he came 
 in, and escapes. He has done the mur- 
 der. No eye has seen him, no ear has 
 heard him. The secret is his own, and 
 it is safe ! 
 
 Ah! Gentlemen, that was a dreadful 
 mistake. Such a secret can be safe no- 
 where. The whole creation of God has 
 neither nook nor corner where the guilty 
 can bestow it, and say it is safe. Xot 
 to speak of that eye which pierces 
 through all disguises, and beholds every 
 thing as in the splendor of noon, such 
 secrets of guilt are never safe from de- 
 tection, even by men. True it is, gen- 
 erally speaking, that " murder will out." 
 True it is, that Providence hath so or- 
 dained, and doth so govern things, that 
 those who break the great law of Heaven 
 by shedding man's blood seldom suc- 
 ceed in avoiding discoveiy. Especially, 
 in a case exciting so much attention as 
 this, discovery must come, and will come, 
 sooner or later. A thousand eyes turn 
 at once to explore eveiy man, every 
 thing, every circumstance, connected 
 with the time and place; a thousand 
 ears catch every whisper ; a thousand ex- 
 cited minds intensely dwell on the scene, 
 shedding all their light, and ready to 
 kindle the slightest circumstance into a 
 blaze of discovery. Meantime the guilty 
 soul cannot keep its own secret. It is 
 false to itself; or rather it feels an irre- 
 sistible impulse of conscience to be true 
 to itself. It labors under its guilty pos- 
 session, and knows not what to do with 
 
196 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 it. The human heart vras not made for 
 tlie residence of such an inhabitant. It 
 finds itself preyed on by a torment, 
 which it dares not acknowledge to God 
 or man. A ^'ulture is devouring it, and 
 it can ask no sjTupathy or assistance, 
 either fi-ora heaven or earth. The secret 
 which the murderer possesses soon comes 
 to possess him; and, like the evil spirits 
 of which we read, it overcomes him, and 
 leads him whithersoever it will. He 
 feels it beating at his heart, rising to 
 his throat, and demanding disclosure. 
 He thinks the whole world sees it in his 
 face, reads it in his eyes, and almost 
 hears its workings in the very silence of 
 his thoughts. It has become his mas- 
 ter. It betrays his discretion, it breaks 
 down his courage, it conquers his pru- 
 dence. 'NMien suspicions from without 
 begin to embarrass him, and the net of 
 circumstance to entangle him, the fatal 
 secret struggles with still greater vio- 
 lence to burst forth. It must be con- 
 fessed, it will be confessed ; there is no 
 refuge from confession but suicide, and 
 suicide is confession. 
 
 Much has been said, on this occasion, 
 of the excitement which has existed, 
 and still exists, and of the extraordinary 
 measures taken to discover and punish 
 the guilty. No doubt there has been, 
 and is, much excitement, and strange 
 indeed it would be had it been other- 
 >vise. Should not all the peaceable and 
 well-disposed naturally feel concerned, 
 and naturally exert themselves to bring 
 to punishment the authors of this secret 
 assassination? Was it a thing to b.e 
 filept upon or forgotten? Did you. Gen- 
 tlemen, sleep quite as quietly in your 
 beds after this murder as before? Was 
 it not a case for rewards, for meetings, 
 for conmtiittees, for the united efforts of 
 all the good, to find out a band of murder- 
 ous conspirators, of midnight ruffians, 
 and to bring them to the bar of justice 
 and law? If this be excitement, is it an 
 unnatural or an improper excitement? 
 
 It seems to me, Gentlemen, that there 
 are appearances of another feeling, of a 
 very different nature and character; not 
 very extensive, I would hope, but still 
 there is too much evidence of its exist- 
 
 ence. Such is human nature, Uiat some 
 persons lose their abhorrence of crime 
 in their admiration of its magnificent 
 exhibitions. Ordinary vice is repio- 
 bated by them, but extraordinary guilt, 
 exquisite wickedness, the high flights 
 and poetry of crime, seize on the imagi- 
 nation, and lead them to forget the 
 depths of the guilt, in admiration of 
 the excellence of tlie performance, or 
 the unequalled atrocity of the purpose. 
 There are those in our day who have 
 made great use of this infirmity of our 
 nature, and by means of it done infinite 
 injuiy to the cause of good morals. 
 They have affected not only the taste, 
 but I fear also the principles, of the 
 young, the heedless, and the imagina- 
 tive, by the exhibition of interesting 
 and beautiful monsters. They render 
 depravity attractive, sometimes by the 
 polish of its manners, and sometimes 
 by its very extravagance ; and study to 
 show off crime under all the advantages 
 of cleverness and dexterity. Gentle- 
 men, this is an extraordinary murder, 
 but it Ls still a murder. AVe are not to 
 lose ourselves in wonder at its origin, or 
 in gazing on its cool and skUful execu- 
 tion. V,'e are to detect and to punish 
 it; and while we proceed with caution 
 against the prisoner, and are to be sure 
 that we do not visit on his head the 
 offences of others, we are yet to con- 
 sider that we are dealii>g with a case of 
 most atrocious crime, which has not the 
 slisrhtest circumstance about it to soften 
 its enormity. It is murder; deliberate, 
 concerted, malicious murder. 
 
 Although the interest of this case may 
 have diminished by the repeated inves- 
 tigation of the facts; still, the addi- 
 tional labor which it imposes ujwn all 
 concerned is not to be regretted, if it 
 should result in removing all doubts of 
 the guilt of the prisoner. 
 
 The learned counsel for the prisoner 
 has said truly, tliat it is your individ- 
 ual duty to judge the prisoner; tliat 
 it is your individual duty to determine 
 his guilt or innocence; and that you 
 are to weigh the testimony with can- 
 dor and fairness. But much at the 
 same time has been said, which, al- 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 197 
 
 thougli it would seem to have no dis- 
 tinct beaj-ing on the trial, cannot be 
 jiassed over without some notice. 
 
 A tone of complaint so peculiar has 
 been indulged, as would almost lead us 
 to doubt whether the prisoner at the 
 bar, or the managers of this prosecu- 
 tion, are now ou trial. Great pains 
 have been taken to complain of the 
 manner of the prosecution. We hear 
 of getting up a case ; of setting in mo- 
 tion trains of machinery; of foul testi- 
 mony; of combinations to overwhelm 
 the prisoner; of private prosecutors; 
 that the prisoner is hunted, persecuted, 
 driven to his trial; that everybody is 
 against him; and various other com- 
 plaints, as if those who would bring to 
 punishment the authors of this murder 
 were almost as bad as they who com- 
 mitted it. 
 
 In the course of my whole life, I have 
 never heard before so much said about 
 the particular counsel who happen to be 
 employed; as if it were extraordinary 
 that other counsel than the usual olli- 
 cers of the government should assist in 
 the management of a case on the part 
 of the government. In one of the last 
 criminal trials in this county, that of 
 Jackman for the " Goodridge robbery" 
 (so called), I remember that the learned 
 head of the Suffolk Bar, Mr. Prescott, 
 came down in aid of the officers of the 
 government. This was regarded as 
 neither strange nor improper. The 
 counsel for the prisoner, in that case, 
 contented themselves with answering 
 his arguments, as far as they were able, 
 instead of carping at his presence. 
 
 Complaint is made that rewards were 
 offered, in this case, and temptations 
 held out to obtain testimony. Are not 
 rewards always offered, when great and 
 secret offences are committed? Rewards 
 were offered in the case to which I have 
 alluded ; and every other means taken to 
 discover the offenders, that ingenuity 
 or the most persevermg vigilance could 
 suggest. The learned counsel have suf- 
 fered their zeal to lead them into a strain 
 of complaint at the manner in which 
 the perpetrators of this crime were de- 
 tected, almost indicating that they re- 
 
 gard it as a positive injury to them to 
 have found out their guilt. Since no 
 man witnessed it, since they do not now 
 confess it, attempts to discover it are 
 half esteemed as officious intermeddling 
 and impertinent inquiry. 
 
 It is said, that here even a Committee 
 of Vigilance was appointed. This is a 
 subject of reiterated remark. This com- 
 mittee are pointed at, as though they 
 had been officiously intermeddling with 
 the administration of justice. They 
 are said to have been "laboring for 
 months " against the prisoner. Gentle- 
 men, what must we do in such a case? 
 Are people to be dumb and still, through 
 fear of overdoing? Is it come to this, 
 that an effort cannot be made, a hand 
 cannot be lifted, to discover the guilty, 
 without its being said there is a combi- 
 nation to overwhelm innocence? Has 
 the communitj' lost all moral sense? 
 Certainly, a community that would not 
 be roused to action upon an occasion 
 such as this was, a community which 
 should not deny sleep to their eyes, and 
 slumber to their eyelids, till they had 
 exliausted all the means of discovery 
 and detection, must indeed be lost to 
 all moral sense, and would scarcely de 
 serve protection from the laws. The 
 learned counsel have endeavored to per- 
 suade you, that there exists a prejudice 
 against the persons accused of this mur 
 der. They would have you imderstand 
 that it is not confined to this vicinity 
 alone; but that even the legislature 
 have caught this spirit. That through 
 the procurement of the gentleman here 
 styled private prosecutor, who is a mem- 
 ber of the Senate, a special session of 
 this court was appointed for the trial 
 of these offenders. That the ordinary 
 movements of the wheels of justice were 
 too slow for the pm-poses devised. But 
 does not everybody see and know, that 
 it was matter of absolute necessity to 
 have a special session of the court? 
 When or how could the prisoners have 
 been tried without a special session? 
 In the ordinary arrangement of the 
 courts, but one week in a year is al- 
 lotted for the whole court to sit in thia 
 county. In the trial of all capital of 
 
lys 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 fences a majority of the court, at least, 
 is required to be present. In the trial 
 of the present case alone, three ■weeks 
 have already been taken up. "Without 
 such special session, then, three years 
 would not have been sufficient for the 
 purpose. It is answer sufficient to aU 
 complaints on this subject to say, that 
 the law was dra\\'n by the late Chief 
 Justice himself ,1 to enable the court to 
 accompli-sh its duties, and to afford the 
 persons accused an opportunity for trial 
 witliout delay. 
 
 Again, it is said that it was not thought 
 of making Francis Knapp, the prisoner 
 at the bar, a principal till after the 
 death of Richard Crowninshield, Jr. ; 
 that the present indictment is an after- 
 thought; that " testimony was got up " 
 for the occasion. It is not so. There 
 is no authority for this suggestion. Tlie 
 case of the Knapps had not then been 
 before the grand jury. The officers of 
 the government did not know what the 
 testimony would be against them. The}' 
 could not, therefore, have determined 
 what course they should pursue. They 
 intended to arraign all as principals who 
 should appear to have been principals, 
 and all as accessories who should appear 
 to have been accessories. AU this could 
 be known only when the evidence should 
 be jiroduced. 
 
 But the learned counsel for the de- 
 fendant take a somewhat loftier fliglit 
 still. They are more concerned, they 
 assure us, for the law itself, than even 
 for their client. Your decision in this 
 case, they say, will stand as a precedent. 
 Gentlemen, we hope it will. We hope it 
 will be a precedent both of candor and 
 intelligence, of fairness and of firmness; 
 a precedent of good sense and honest 
 purpose pursuing their investigation dis- 
 creetly, rejecting loose generalities, ex- 
 ploring all the circumstances, weighing 
 each, in search of truth, and embracing 
 and declaring the truth when found. 
 
 It is said, that "laws ai-e made, not 
 for the jmnishmentof the guilty, but for 
 the protection of the innocent." This is 
 not quite accurate, perhaps, but if so, we 
 hope they will be so administered as to 
 1 Chief Justice Parker. 
 
 give that protection. But who are the 
 innocent whom the law would protect? 
 Gentlemen, Joseph "White was innocent. 
 They are innocent who, having lived in 
 the fear of God through the day, wish to 
 sleep in his peace through the night, in 
 their own beds. The law is established 
 that those who live quietly may sleep 
 quietly ; that they who do no harm may 
 feel none. The gentleman can think of 
 none that are innocent except the pris- 
 oner at the bar, not yet convicted. Is 
 a proved conspirator to murder inno- 
 cent? Are the Crowninshields and the 
 Knapps innocent? What is innocence? 
 How deep stained with blood, how reck- 
 less in crime, how deep in depravity may 
 it be, and yet retain innocence? The 
 law is made, if we would speak with en- 
 tire accuracy, to protect the innocent by 
 puni.shing the guilty. But there are those 
 innocent out of a court, as well as in; 
 innocent citizens not suspected of crime, 
 as well as innocent prisoners at the bur. 
 The criminal law is not founded in a 
 principle of vengeance. It does not pun- 
 ish that it may inflict suffering. The 
 humanity of the law feels and regrets 
 every pain it causes, evei-y hour of re- 
 straint it imposes, and more deeply still 
 every life it forfeits. But it uses evil as 
 the means of preventing gi'eater evil. 
 It seeks to deter from crime by the ex- 
 ample of punishment. This is its true, 
 and only true main object. It restrains 
 the liberty of the few offenders, that 
 the many who do not offend may enjoy 
 their liberty. It takes the life of the 
 murderer, that other murders may not 
 be committed. The law might open the 
 jails, and at once set free all persons ac- 
 cused of offences, and it ought to do so 
 if it could be made certain tliat no other 
 offences would hereafter be committed, 
 because it punishes, not to satisfy any 
 desire to inflict pain, but simply to pre- 
 vent tlie repetition of crimes. When 
 the guilty, therefore, are not punished, 
 the law has so far failed of its purpose; 
 the safety of the innocent is so far en- 
 dangered. Every unpunished murder 
 takes away something from the security 
 of every man's life. Whenever a jury, 
 through whimsical and ill-founded scru 
 
THE MURDER Oi- CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 199 
 
 pies, suffer the guilty to escape, they 
 make themselves answerable for the 
 augimnted dant^er of the innocent. 
 
 We wish nothing to be strained against 
 this defendant. Why, then, all this 
 alarm? Why all this complaint against 
 the manner in which the crime is dis- 
 covered? The prisoner's counsel catch 
 at supposed flaws of evidence, or bad 
 character of witnesses, without meeting 
 the case. Do they mean to deny the 
 confipiracy? Do they mean to deny that 
 the *wo Crowninshields and the two 
 Knapps were conspirators ? Why do they 
 rail against Palmer, wliile they do not 
 disprove, and hardly dispute, the truth 
 of any one fact sworn to by him? In- 
 stead of this, it is made matter of senti- 
 mentality that Palmer has been prevailed 
 upon to betray his bosom companions 
 and to violate the sanctity of friendship. 
 Again I ask, "\^'hy do they not meet the 
 case? If the fact is out, why not meet 
 it? Do they mean to deny that Captain 
 White is dead? One would have almost 
 supposed even that, from some remarks 
 that have been made. Do they mean to 
 deny the conspiracy ? Or, admitting a 
 conspiracy, do they mean to deny only 
 that Frank Knapp, the prisoner at the 
 bar, was abetting in the murder, being 
 present, and so deny that he was a prin- 
 cipal? If a conspiracy is proved, it bears 
 closely upon every subsequent subject of 
 inquiry. Why do they not come to the 
 fact? Here the defence is wliolly in- 
 distinct. The counsel neither take the 
 gi'ound, nor abandon it. They neither 
 fly, nor light. They hover. But they 
 must come to a closer mode of con- 
 test. They must meet the facts, and 
 either deny or admit them. Had the 
 piisoner at the bar, then, a knowledge 
 of this conspiracy or not? This is the 
 question. Instead of laying out their 
 etreuglh in complaining of the manner 
 in whicL. the deed is discovered, of the 
 extraordinary pains taken to bring the 
 Drisoner's guilt to light, would it not 
 be better to show there was no guilt? 
 AVould it not be better to show his inno- 
 cence? They say, and they complain, that 
 the community feel a great desire that 
 he should be punished for his crimes. 
 
 Would it not be better to convince you 
 that he has committed no crime? 
 
 Gentlemen, let us now come to the 
 case. Your first inquirj', on the evi- 
 dence, will be. Was Captain White 
 murdered in pursuance of a conspir- 
 acy, and was the defendant one of this 
 conspiracy? If so, the second inquiiy 
 is, Was he so connected with the mur- 
 der itself as that he is liable to be con- 
 victed as a principal ? The defendant is 
 indicted as a principal. If not guilty a» 
 such , you cannot convict him. The in- 
 dictment contains three distinct classes 
 of counts. In the first, he is charged as 
 having done the deed with his own 
 hand; in the second, as an aider and 
 abettor to Richard Crowuinshield, Jr., 
 who did the deed; in the third, as an 
 aider and abettor to some person un- 
 known. If you believe him guilty on 
 either of these counts, or in either of 
 these ways, you must convict him. 
 
 It may be proper to say, as a prelimi- 
 nary remark, that there are tv\'o extraor- 
 dinary circumstances attending this trial. 
 One is, that Richard Crow'ninshield, Jr., 
 the supposed immediate perpetrator of 
 the murder, since his arrest, has com- 
 mitted suicide. He has gone to answer 
 before a tribunal of perfect infallibility. 
 The other is, that Joseph Knapp, the 
 supposed originator and planner of the 
 mm'der, ha\*ing once made a full dis- 
 closure of the facts, under a promise of 
 indemnity, is, nevertheless, not now a 
 witness. Notwithstanding his disclos- 
 ure and his promise of indemnity, he 
 now refuses to testify. He chooses to 
 return to his original state, and now 
 stands answerable himself, when the 
 time shall come for his trial. These cir- 
 cumstances it is fit j'ou should remem- 
 ber, in your investigation of the case. 
 
 Your decision may affect more than 
 the life of this defendant. If he be not 
 convicted as principal, no one cm bo 
 Nor can any one be convicted of a par- 
 ticipation in the crime as accessory. 
 The Knapps and George Crowuinshield 
 will be again on the community. This 
 shows the importance of the duty you 
 have to perform, and serves to remind 
 you of the care and wisdom necessary to 
 
200 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 be exercised in its pei-formance. But 
 certainly these considerations do not 
 render the prisoner's guilt any clearer, 
 nor enhance the weight of the evidence 
 against him. No one desires you to re- 
 gard consequences in that light. No one 
 wishes any thing to be strained, or too far 
 pressed against the prisoner. Still, it is 
 fit you shoild see the full importance of 
 the duty wLich devolves upon you. 
 
 And n: w, Gentlemen, in examining 
 this evidence, let us begin at the begin- 
 ning, and see first what we know in- 
 dependent of the disputed testimony. 
 This is a case of circimistantial evidence. 
 And these circumstances, we think, are 
 full and satisfactory'. The case mainly 
 depends upon them, and it is common 
 that offences of this kind must be proved 
 in this way. Midnight assassins take 
 no witnesses. The evidence of the facts 
 relied on has been somewhat sneeringly 
 denominated, by the learned counsel, 
 "circumstantial stuff," but it is not 
 such stuff as dreams are made of. Why 
 does he not rend this stuff? ^^^ly does 
 he not scatter it to the winds? He dis- 
 misses it a little too summarily. It shall 
 be my business to examine this stuff, 
 and try its cohesion. 
 
 The letter from Palmer at Belfast, is 
 that no more than flimsy stuff? 
 
 The fabricated letters from Knapp to 
 the committee and to Mr. White, are 
 they nothing but stuff? 
 
 The cii'cumstance, that the house- 
 keeper was away at the time the murder 
 was committed, as it was agreed she 
 would be, is that, too, a useless piece of 
 the same stuff? 
 
 The facts, that the key of the cham- 
 ber door was taken out and secreted; 
 that the window was unbarred and un- 
 bolted; are these to be so slightly and so 
 easily disposed of? 
 
 It is necessary. Gentlemen, to settle 
 now, at the commencement, the gi'eat 
 question of a conspiracy. If there was 
 none, or the defendant was not a party, 
 then there is no evidence here to convict 
 him. If there was a conspiracy, and 
 he is proved to have been a party, then 
 these two facts have a strong bearing on 
 others, and all the great points of in- 
 
 quiry. The defendant's counsel take no 
 distinct ground, as I have already said, 
 on this point, either to admit or to deny. 
 They choose to confine themselves to a 
 hypothetical mode of speech. They say, 
 supposing there was a conspiracy, non 
 sequitur that the prisoner is guilty as 
 principal. Be it so. But stLU, if there 
 was a conspiracy, and if he was a con- 
 spirator, and helped to plan the murder, 
 this may shed much light on the evidence 
 which goes to charge hun with the exe- 
 cution of that plan. 
 
 We mean to make out the conspiracy ; 
 and that the defendant was a party to it; 
 and then to draw all just inferences from 
 these facts. 
 
 Let me ask your attention, then, in the 
 first place, to those appearances, on the 
 morning after the murder, which have a 
 tendency to show that it was done in pur- 
 suance of a preconcerted plan of opera- 
 tion. What are they? A man was found 
 murdered in his bed. No stranger had 
 done the deed, no one unacquainted with 
 the house had done it. It was apparent 
 that somebody within had opened, and 
 that somebody without had entered. 
 There had obviously and certainly been 
 concert and co-operation. The inmates 
 of the house were not alarmed when the 
 murder was perpetrated. The assassin 
 had entered without any riot or any \\o- 
 lence. lie had found the way prepared 
 before him. The house had been pre- 
 viously opened. The window was un- 
 barred from within, and its fa.stening 
 unscrewed. There was a lock on the 
 door of the chamber in which Mr. AMiite 
 slept, but the key was gone. It had been 
 taken away and secreted. The footsteps 
 of the murderer were visible, out-doors, 
 tending toward the window. The plank 
 by which he entered the window still re- 
 mained. The road he pursued had been 
 thus prepared for him. The victini was 
 slain, and the murderer had escaped. 
 Every thing indicated that somebody 
 within had co-operated with somebody 
 without. Every thing proclaimed that 
 some of the inmates, or somebody hav- 
 ing access to the house, had had a hand 
 in the murder. On the face of the cir- 
 cumstances, it was apparent, therefore, 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 'JOl 
 
 that this was a premeditated, concerted 
 murder ; that there had been a conspiracy 
 to connnit it. Who, then, were the con- 
 spirators? If not now found out, we 
 are still grojnng in the dark, and the 
 whole tragedy is still a mystery. 
 
 If the Knapps and the Crowninshields 
 were noj- the conspirators in this murder, 
 then there is a whole set of conspirators 
 not yet discovered. Because, indepen- 
 dent of the testimony of Palmer and 
 Leigh ton, independent of all disputed 
 evidence, we know, from uncontroverted 
 facts, that this murder was, and must 
 have been, the result of concert and co- 
 operation between two or more. We 
 know it was not done without plan and 
 deliberation; we see, that whoever en- 
 tered the house, to strike the blow, was 
 favored and aided by some one who had 
 been previously in the house, without 
 suspicion, and who had prepared the 
 way. This is concert, this is co-operation, 
 this is conspiracy. If the Knapps and 
 the Crowninshields, then, were not the 
 conspirators, who were? Joseph Knapp 
 had a motive to desire the death of Mr. 
 AVhite, and that motive has been shown. 
 
 He was connected by marriage with 
 the family of Mr. "\Miite. His wife was 
 the daughter of Mrs. Beckford, who 
 was the only child of a sister of the 
 deceased. The deceased was more than 
 eighty years old, and had no children. 
 His only heirs were nephews and nieces. 
 He was supposed to be possessed of a 
 very large fortune, which would have 
 descended, by law, to his several neph- 
 ews and nieces in equal shares; or, if 
 there was a will, then according to the 
 will. But as he had but two branches 
 of heirs, the children of his brother, 
 Henry "White, and of Mrs. Beckford, 
 each of these branches, according to the 
 common idea, would have shared one 
 half of his property. 
 
 This popular idea is not legally cor- 
 rect. But it is common, and very prob- 
 ably was entertained by the parties. 
 According to this idea, Mrs. Beckford, 
 on Mr. AVliite's death without a will, 
 would have been entitled to one half of 
 his ample fortune; and Joseph Knapp 
 Lad married one of her three children. 
 
 There was a will, and this will ga-o the 
 bulk of the property to others; a:id we 
 learn from I'alnuT that one part of the 
 design was to destroy the will before the 
 murder was committed. There had been 
 a previous will, and that previous will 
 was known or believed to have been 
 more favorable than the other to the 
 Beckford family. So that, by dest-oy« 
 ing the last will, and destroying the life 
 of the testator at the same time, either 
 the first and more favorable will would 
 be set up, or the deceased would have 
 no will, which would be, as was sup- 
 posed, still more favorable. But the 
 conspirators not having succeeded in 
 obtaining and destroying the last will, 
 though they accomplished the murder, 
 that will being found in existence and 
 safe, and that will bequeathing the mass 
 of the property to others, it seemed at 
 the time impossible for .Joseph Knapp, 
 as for any one else, indeed, but the jirin- 
 cipal devisee, to have any motive which 
 should lead to the murder. The key 
 which unlocks the whole mystery is the 
 knowledge of the intention of the con- 
 si")irators to steal the will. This is de- 
 rived from Palmer, and it explains all. 
 It solves the whole marvel. It shows 
 the motive which actuated those, against 
 whom there is much evidence, but who, 
 without the knowledge of this intention, 
 were not seen to have had a motive. 
 This intention is proved, as I have said, 
 by Palmer ; and it is so congriious with 
 all the rest of the case, it agrees so well 
 with all facts and circumstances, that 
 no man could well withhold his belief, 
 though the facts were stated by a still 
 less credible witness. If one desirous 
 of opening a lock turns over and tries 
 a bunch of keys till he finds one that 
 will open it, he naturally supposes he 
 has found the key of that lock. So, in 
 explaining circumstances of evidence 
 which are apparently irreconcilable or 
 unaccountable, if a fact be suggested 
 which at once accounts for all, and rec- 
 onciles all, by whomsoever it may be 
 stated, it is still difficult not to believe 
 that such fact is the true fact belonging 
 to the case. In this respect. Palmer's 
 testimony is singularly confirmed. If it 
 
202 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 were false, his ingenuity could not fur- 
 nish us such clear exjiosition of strange 
 appearing circumstances. Some truth 
 not before known can alone do that. 
 
 "\Mien we look back, then, to the 
 state of things immediately on the dis- 
 covery of tiie murder, we see that sus- 
 picion would naturally turn at once, not 
 to the heirs at law, but to these princi- 
 pal!} benefited by the will. They, and 
 they alone, would be supposed or seem 
 to have a direct object for wishing Mr. 
 White's life to be terminated. And, 
 strange as it may seem, we find counsel 
 now insisting, that, if no apologj', it is 
 yet mitigation of the atrocity of the 
 Knapps' conduct in atteinpting to charge 
 this fold murder on Mr. White, the 
 nephew and principal devisee, that pub- 
 lic suspicion was already so directed! 
 As if assassination of character were 
 excusable in proportion as circumstances 
 may rentier it easy. Their endeavors, 
 when they knew they were susjiected 
 themselves, to fix the charge on others, 
 by foul means and by falsehood, are fair 
 and stiong proof of their own guilt. 
 But more of that hereafter. 
 
 Tlie counsel say that they might safely 
 admit lliat Richard Crowninsliield, Jr. 
 was tlie perpetrator of this murder. 
 
 But how could they safely admit that? 
 Jf tliat were admitted, every thing else 
 would follow. For wiiy slionld Richard 
 Crowninsliield, Jr. kill Mr. White? He 
 was not his heir, nor his devisee ; nor 
 was he his enemy. What could be his 
 motive? If Richard Crowninsliield, Jr. 
 killed Mr. White, he did it at some 
 one's procurement who liimself had a 
 motive. And who, having any motive, 
 is shown to have had any intercourse 
 with Richard Crowninsliield, Jr., but 
 Jcsepli Kiiapp, and tliis principally 
 througli the agency of the prisoner at 
 the bar? It is the infirmity, the dis- 
 tressing difficulty of the prisoner's case, 
 that his counsel cannot and dare not 
 admit what they yet cannot disprove, 
 and what all must believe. lie who be- 
 lieves, on this evidence, that Rich- 
 ard Crowninsliield, Jr. was the im- 
 iw liate murderer, cannot doubt that 
 both the Knapps were conspirators ! 
 
 in that murder. The counsel, there- 
 fore, are wrong, I think, in saying 
 they might safely admit this. The ad- 
 mission of so imjx)rtant and so connect- 
 ed a fact would render it impossible to 
 contend further against the proof of tha 
 entire conspiracy, as we state it. 
 
 What, then, was this conspiracy? J. 
 J. Knajip, Jr., desirous of destroying 
 the will, and of taking the life of the 
 deceased, hired a ruffian, who, with the 
 aid of other ruffians, was to enter the 
 hou.se, and murder hira in his bed. 
 
 As far back as January this conspiracy 
 began. Endicott testifies to a conver- 
 sation with J. J. Knapp at that time, in 
 which Knapp told him that Captain 
 White had made a will, and given the 
 principal ]>art of his ]>roperty to Stephen 
 AVhite. AVhen asked how he knew, he 
 said, "Black and white don't lie." 
 A\'hen asked if the will was not locked 
 up, he said, " There is such a thing as 
 two keys to the same lock." And 
 speaking of the then late illness of Cap- 
 tain White, he said, that Stephen AMiite 
 would not have been sent for if Ae had 
 been there. 
 
 Hence it appears, that as early as Jan- 
 uary Knapp had a knowledge of the 
 will, and that he had access to it by 
 means of false keys. This knowledge 
 of the will, and an intent to destroy it, 
 appear also from Palmer's testimony, a 
 fact disclosed to him by the other con- 
 spirators. He says that he was informed 
 of this by the Crowninshields on the 
 2d of April. But then it is said, that 
 Palmer is not to be credited; that by hij 
 own confession he is a felon ; that he has 
 been in tlie State prison in Maine; and, 
 above all, that he was intimately as.soci- 
 ated with these conspirators themselves. 
 Let us admit these facts. Let us admit 
 him to be as bad as they would repre.sent 
 him to be; still, in law, he is a compe- 
 tent witness. How else are the secret 
 designs of tlie wicked to be proved, but 
 by their wicked companions, to wiiom 
 they have disclosed them ? The govern- 
 ment does not select its witnesses. The 
 conspirators themselves have chosen 
 Palmer. He was the confidant of the 
 prisoners The fact, howevei , does not 
 
THE MURDER OF aVPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 203 
 
 depend on his testimony alone. It is 
 corroborated by other proof; and, taken 
 in connection with the other circumstan- 
 ces, it has strong probability. In regard 
 to the testimony of Palmer, generally, it 
 may be said that it is less contradicted, 
 in "all parts of it, either by himself or 
 others, than that of any other material 
 •witness, and that every tiling he has told 
 is corroborated by other evidence, so far 
 as it is susceptible of confirmation. An 
 attempt has been made to impair his 
 testimony, as to liis being at the Half- 
 way House on the night of the murder; 
 you have seen with what success. ^Ir. 
 Babb is called to contradict him. You 
 have seen how little he knows, and even 
 that not certainly; for he himself is 
 proved to have been in an error by sup- 
 posing Palmer to have been at the Half- 
 way House on the evening of the 9th of 
 April. At that time he is proved to 
 have been at Dustin's, in Danvers. If, 
 then, Palmer, bad as he is, has disclosed 
 the secrets of the conspiracy, and has 
 told the truth, there is no reason why it 
 should not be believed. Truth is truth, 
 come whence it may. 
 
 The facts show that this murder had 
 been long in agitation ; that it was not 
 a new proposition on the 2d of April; 
 that it had been contemplated for five or 
 six weeks. Richard Crowninshield was 
 at Wenham in the latter part of March, 
 as testified by Starrett. Frank Knapp 
 was at Danvers in the latter part of 
 February, as testified by Allen. Rich- 
 ard Crowninshield inquired whether 
 Captain Knapp was about home, when 
 at Wenham. The probability is, that 
 they would open the case to Palmer 
 as a new project. There are other 
 circumstances that show it to have 
 been some weeks in agitation. Palm- 
 er's testimony as to the transaction 
 on the 2d of April is corroborated by 
 Allen, and by Osborn's books. He 
 says that Frank Knapp came there in 
 the afternoon, and again in the even- 
 ing. So the book shows. He says 
 that Captain White had gone out to his 
 farm on that day. So others prove. 
 How could this fact, or these facts, have 
 beeu known to Palmer, unless Frank 
 
 Knapp had brought the knowledge? 
 And was it not the special object of this 
 visit to give information of this fact» 
 that they might meet him and execute 
 their purpose on his return from his 
 farm? The letter of Palmer, written at 
 Belfast, bears intrinsic marks of genu- 
 ineness. It was mailed at Belfast, May 
 i:3th. It states facts that he could not 
 have known, unless his testimony b« 
 true. This letter was not an after- 
 thought; it is a genuine narrative. la 
 fact, it says, " I know the business youi 
 brother Frank was transacting on the 
 2d of April." How could he have pos- 
 sibly known this, unless he had been 
 there ? The " one thousand dollars that 
 was to be paid," — where could he have 
 obtained this knowledge? The testi- 
 mony of Endicott, of Palmer, and these 
 facts, are to be taken together; and 
 they most clearly show that the death 
 of Captain White was caused by some- 
 body interested in putting an end to 
 his life. 
 
 As to the testimony of Leigh ton, as 
 far as manner of testifying goes, he is a 
 bad witness ; but it does not follow from 
 this that he is not to be believed. There 
 are some strange things about him. It 
 is strange, that he should make up a story 
 against Captain Knapp, the person with 
 whom he lived; that he never volunta- 
 rily told any thing : all that he has said 
 was screwed out of him. But the story 
 could not have been invented by him; 
 his character for truth is unimpeached; 
 and he intimated to another witness, 
 soon after the mm-der happened, that 
 he knew something he should not tell. 
 There is not the least contradiction in 
 his testimony, though he gives a poor 
 account of withholding it. He says that 
 he was extremely bothered by those who 
 questioned him. In the main story that 
 he relates, he is entu-ely consistent with 
 himself. Some things are for bun, and 
 some against him. Examine the in- 
 trujsic probability of what he says. See 
 if some allowance is not to be made 
 for him, on account of his ignorance of 
 things of this kind. It is said to be ex- 
 traordinary, that he .should have heani 
 just so much of the conversation, and 
 
204 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 no more ; that he should have heard just 
 what was necessary to be proved, and 
 nothing else. Admit that this is ex- 
 traordinary'; still, tliis does not prove it 
 untrue. It is extraordinary that you 
 twelve gentlemen should be called upon, 
 out of all the men in the county, to 
 decide this case; no one could have 
 foretold this three weeks since. It is 
 extraordinary that the first clew to this 
 consi)iracy should have been derived 
 from information given by the father of 
 the prisoner at the bar. And in every 
 ca.se that comes to trial there are many 
 things extraordinary. The murder itself 
 is a most extraordinary one ; but still we 
 do not doubt its reality. 
 
 It is argued, that this conversation 
 between Joseph and Frank could not 
 have been as Leighton has testified, be- 
 cause they had been together for several 
 hours before; this subject must have 
 been uppermost in their minds, whereas 
 this appears to have been the commence- 
 ment of their conversation upon it. Now 
 this depends altogether upon the tone 
 and manner of the expression ; upon the 
 particular word in the sentence which 
 was emi>hatically spoken. If he had 
 said, " When did you see Dick, Frank? " 
 this would not seem to be the beginning 
 of the conversation. AVith what em- 
 phasis it was uttered, it is not possible 
 to learn; and therefore nothing can be 
 made of this argument. If this boy's 
 testimony stood r.lone, it should be re- 
 ceived with caution. And the same may 
 be said of the testimony of Palmer. 
 15 ut they do not stand alone. They fur- 
 nish a clew to numerous other circum- 
 stances, which, when known, mutually 
 confirm -^hat would have been received 
 witli caution without such corrobora- 
 tion . How could Leigliton have made up 
 this conversation? " When did you see 
 Dijic?" "I saw him this morning." 
 " Wlien Is he going to kill the old 
 man?" " I don't know." " Tell him, 
 if he don't do it soon, I won't pay 
 him." Here is a vast amount in few 
 words. Had he wit enough to invent 
 tliis? There is nothing so powerful as 
 truth; and often nothing so strange. 
 It is not eve» suggested that the story 
 
 was made for him. There is noth- 
 ing so extraordina^^• in the whole mat- 
 ter, as it would have been for thia 
 ignorant country boy to invent this 
 story. 
 
 The acts of the parties themselves fur- 
 nish strong presumption of their guilt. 
 What was done on the receipt of the 
 letter from Maine? This letter was 
 signed by Charles Grant, Jr., a person 
 not known to either of the Knapps, nor 
 was it known to them that any other 
 person beside tlie Crowninshields knew 
 of the conspiracy. This letter, by the 
 accidental omission of the word Jr. , fell 
 into the hands of the father, when in- 
 tended for the son. The father carried 
 it to Wenham, where both the sons were. 
 They both read it. Fix your eye stead- 
 ily on this part of the circumstantial istuff 
 which is in the case, and see what can 
 be made of it. This was shown to the 
 two brothers on Saturday, the 15th of 
 May. Neither of them knew Pahuer. 
 And if they had known him, they could 
 not have known him to have been the 
 writer of this letter. It was mysterious 
 to them how any one at Belfast could 
 have had knowledge of this affair. Their 
 conscious guilt prevented due circum- 
 spection. They did not see the bearing 
 of its publication. They advised their 
 father to carry it to the Committee of 
 Vigilance, and it was so carried. On 
 the Sunday following, Joseph began to 
 think there might be something in it. 
 Perhaps, in tlie mean time, he had seen 
 one of the Crowninshields. He was 
 apprehensive that they might be sus- 
 pected; he was anxious to turn atten- 
 tion from their family. What course 
 did he adopt to effect this? He ad- 
 dres.sed one letter, with a false name, 
 to Mr. White, and another to the Com- 
 mittee; and to complete the climax of 
 his folly, he signed the letter addressed 
 to the Committee, "Grant," the same 
 name as that which was signed to the 
 letter received from Belfast. It was in 
 the knowledge of the Committee, that 
 no person but the Knapps had seen this 
 letter from BeKast; and that no other 
 person knew its signature. It therefore 
 must have been irresistibly plain to them 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 20.^ 
 
 Uiat one of the Knapps was the writer 
 of the letter received by the Commit- 
 tee, charging tlie murder on Mr. White. 
 Add to this the fact of its having been 
 dated at Lyim, and mailed at Salem 
 four days after it was dated, and who 
 could doubt respecting it? Have you 
 ever read or knowii of folly equal to 
 this? Can you conceive of crime more 
 odious and abominable? Merely to ex- 
 plain tlie apparent mysteries of the letter 
 from Palmer, they excite the basest sus- 
 picions against a man, whom, if they 
 were innocent, they had no reason to 
 believe guilty; and whom, if they were 
 guilty, they most certainly knew to be 
 innocent. Could they have adopted a 
 more direct method of exposing their 
 own infamy? The letter to the Com- 
 mittee has intrinsic marks of a knowl- 
 edge of this transaction. It tells the 
 time and the manner in which the murder 
 was committed. Every line speaks the 
 writer's condemnation. In attempting 
 to divert attention from his family, and 
 to charge the guilt upon another, he in- 
 delibly fixes it upon himself. 
 
 Joseph Knapp requested Allen to put 
 these letters into the post-office, because, 
 said he, "I wish to nip this silly affair 
 in the bud." If this were not the order 
 of an overruling Providence, I should 
 say that it was the silliest piece of folly 
 that was ever practised. Mark the des- 
 tiny of crime. It is ever obliged to re- 
 sort to such subterfuges ; it trembles in 
 the broad light ; it betrays itself in seek- 
 ing concealment. lie alone walks safely 
 who walks uprightly. "\Mio for a mo- 
 ment can read these letters and doubt of 
 Joseph Knapp's guilt? The constitu- 
 tion of nature is made to inform against 
 him. There is no corner dark enoiigh 
 to conceal him. There is no turnpike- 
 road broad enough or smooth enough 
 for a man so guilty to walk in without 
 stumbling. Every step proclaims his 
 secret to every passenger. His own acts 
 come out to fix his guilt. In attempting 
 to charge another with his own crime, 
 he writes his own confession. To do 
 away the effe/jt of Palmer's letter, signed 
 Grant, he writes a letter himself and 
 affixes to it the name of Grant. He 
 
 writes in a disguised hand; but how 
 could it happen that the same Grant 
 should be in Salem that was at Belfa.st' 
 This has brought the whole thing out 
 Evidently he did it, because he haa 
 adopted the same stjie. Evidently he 
 did it, because he speaks of the price of 
 blood, and of other circumstances con- 
 nected with the murder, that no one but 
 a conspirator could have known. 
 
 Palmer says he made a visit to the 
 Crowninshields, on the 9th of April. 
 George then asked him whether he had 
 heard of the murder. Richard inquired 
 whether he had heard the music at Salem. 
 They said that they were suspected, that 
 a committee had been appointed to search 
 houses ; and that they had melted up the 
 dagger, the day after the murder, be- 
 cause it would be a suspicious circum- 
 stance to have it found in their possession. 
 Now this committee was not appointed, 
 in fact, until Friday evening. But this 
 proves nothing against Palmer; it does 
 not prove that George did not tell him 
 so; it only proves that he gave a false 
 reason for a fact. They had heard that 
 they were suspected; how could they 
 have heard this, unless it were from the 
 whisperings of their own consciences? 
 Surely this rumor was not then pub- 
 lic. 
 
 About the 27th of April, another at- 
 tempt was made by the Knapps to give 
 a direction to public suspicion. They re- 
 ported themselves to have been robbed, 
 in passing from Salem to Wenham, near 
 Wenham Pond. They came to Salem 
 and stated the particulars of the adven- 
 ture. They described persons, their 
 dress, size, and appearance, who had 
 been suspected of the murder. They 
 would have it understood that the com- 
 munity was infested by a band of luf- 
 fians, and that they themselves were the 
 particular objects of their vengeance. 
 Xow this turns out to be all fictitious, 
 all false. Can you conceive of any thing 
 more enormous, any wickedness greater, 
 than the circulation of such reports? 
 than the allegation of crimes, if com- 
 mitted, capital? If no such crime had 
 been committed, then it reacts with 
 double force upon themselves, and goes 
 
206 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 very far to show their guilt. How did 
 they conduct themselves on this occa- 
 sion? Did they make hue and cry? 
 Did they give information that they 
 had been assaulted that night at "Wen- 
 ham? No such thing. They rested 
 quietly that night; they waited to be 
 called on for the particulars of their ad- 
 venture; they made no attempt to arrest 
 the offenders ; this was not their object. 
 They were content to fill the thousand 
 mouths of rumor, to spread abroad false 
 reports, to divert the attention of the 
 public from themselves; for they 
 thought every man suspected them, be- 
 cause they knew they ought to be sus- 
 pected. 
 
 Tlie manner in which the compensa- 
 tion for this murder was paid is a cir- 
 cumstance worthy of consideration. By 
 examining the facts and dates, it will 
 satisfactorily appear that Joseph Knapp 
 paid a sum of money to Richard Crown- 
 inshield, in five-franc pieces, on the 24:th 
 of April. On the 21st of April, Joseph 
 Knapp received five hundred five-franc 
 pieces, as the proceeds of an adventure 
 at sea. The remainder of this species 
 of currency that came home in the ves- 
 sel was deposited in a bank at Salem. 
 On Saturday, the 24th of April. Frank 
 and Richard rode to AVenham. They 
 were tliere with Joseph an hour or 
 more, and appeared to be negotiating 
 private business. Richard continued 
 in the chaise ; Joseph came to the 
 chaise and conversed with him. These 
 facts are proved by Hart and Leigh- 
 ton, and by Osborn's books. On Sat- 
 urday evening, about this time, Richard 
 Crowninshield is proved, by Lummus, to 
 have been at "Wenham, with another 
 person whose appearance corresponds 
 with Frank's. Can any one doubt this 
 being the same evening? "\Miat had 
 Ricliard Crowninshield to do at Wen- 
 ham, with Joseph, unless it were this 
 business? lie was there before the mur- 
 dei ; he was there after the murder; he 
 Wivs tliere clandestinely, unwilling to be 
 seen. If it were not upon this business, 
 let it be told what it was for. Joseph 
 Knapp could explain it; Frank Knapp 
 miglit explain it. But they do not ex- 
 
 plain it; and the inference is against 
 them. 
 
 Immediately after this, Richurd passe.s 
 five-franc pieces; on the same evening, 
 one to Lummus, five to Palmer; and 
 near this time George passes three or 
 four in Salem. Here are nine of these 
 pieces passed by them in four days ; this 
 is extraordinary. It is an unusual cur- 
 rency ; in ordinary business, few men 
 would pass nine such pieces in the 
 course of a year. If they were not re- 
 ceived in this way, why not explain Low 
 they came by them? Money was not so 
 flush in their pockets that they could not 
 tell whence it came, if it honestly came 
 there. It is extremely important to them 
 to explain whence this money came, and 
 they would do it if they could. K, then, 
 the price of blood was paid at this time, 
 in the presence and with the knowledge 
 of this defendant, does not this prove 
 him to have been connected with this 
 conspiracy? 
 
 Obsen-e, also, the effect on the mind 
 of Richard of Palmer's being arrested 
 and committed to prison; the various 
 efforts he makes to discover the fact; 
 the lowering, through the crevices of 
 the rock, the pencil and paper for hun 
 to write upon ; the sending two lines of 
 poetry, with the request that he M-ould 
 return the corresponding lines ; the shrill 
 and peculiar whistle ; the inimitable 
 exclamations of " Palmer! Palmer! 
 Palmer! " All these things prove how 
 great was his alarm; they corroborate 
 Palmer's story, and tend to establish 
 the conspiracy. 
 
 Joseph Knapp had a part to act in 
 this matter. He must have opened the 
 window, and secreted the key ; he had 
 free access to everj' part of the house; 
 he was accustomed to visit there; he 
 went in and out at his pleasure; he 
 could do this without being suspected. 
 He is proved to have been there the 
 Saturday preceding. 
 
 If all these things, taken in connec- 
 tion, do not prove that Captain White 
 was murdered in pursuance of a con- 
 spiracy, then the case is at an end. 
 
 Savary's testimony is wholly unex- 
 pected. He was called for a different 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 207 
 
 purj>ose. AMien asked who the person 
 was that he saw come out of Captain 
 ^\^^ite's yard between three and four 
 o'clock in the morning, he answered, 
 Frank Knapp. It is not clear that this 
 is not true. There may be many cir- 
 cumstances of importance connected 
 witli this, though we believe the mur- 
 der to have been committed between 
 ten and eleven o'clock. The letter to 
 Dr. Barstow states it to have been done 
 about eleven o'clock; it states it to have 
 been done with a blow on the head, from 
 a weapon loaded with lead. Here is too 
 great a correspondence with the reality 
 not to have some meaning in it. Dr. 
 Teirson was always of the opinion, that 
 the two classes of wounds were made 
 with different instruments, and by dif- 
 ferent hands. It is possible that one 
 class was inflicted at one time, and the 
 other at another. It is possible that on 
 the last visit the pulse might not have 
 entirely ceased to beat, and then the 
 finishing stroke was given. It is said, 
 that, when the body was discovered, 
 some of the wounds wept, while the 
 others did not. They may have been 
 inflicted from mere wantonness. It was 
 knowTi that Captain "White was accus- 
 tomed to keep specie by him in his cham- 
 ber ; this perhaps may explain the last 
 visit. It is proved, that this defendant 
 was in the habit of retiring to bed, and 
 leaving it afterwards, without the knowl- 
 edge of his family; perhaps he did so 
 on this occasion. We see no reason to 
 doubt the fact; and it does not .shake 
 our belief that the murder was commit- 
 ted early in the night. 
 
 "What are the probabilities as to the 
 time of the murder? >\Ir. "White was 
 an aged man ; he usually retired to bed 
 at about half-past nine. lie slept 
 Boundest in the early part of the night; 
 usually awoke in the middle and latter 
 part; and his habits were perfectly well 
 known. "W"hen would persons, with a 
 knowledge of these facts, be most likely 
 to approach him? Most certainly, in the 
 first hour of his sleep. This would be 
 the safest time. If seen then going to 
 or from the house, the appearance would 
 be least suspicious. The earlier horn- 
 
 would then have been most probably 
 selected. 
 
 Gentlemen, I shall dwell no longer on 
 the evidence which tends to prove that 
 there was a conspiracy, and that the 
 prisoner was a conspirator. All the 
 circumstances concur to make out this 
 point. Not only Palmer swears to it, in 
 effect, and Leighton, but Allen mainiy 
 suppoi-ts Palmer, and Osborn's l>ookB 
 lend confirmation, so far as pu.^sible, 
 from such a source. Palmer is contra^ 
 dieted in nothing, either by any other 
 witness, or any proved circumstance or 
 occurrence. "N^liatever could be ex- 
 pected to support him does support 
 him. All the evidence clearly mani- 
 fests, I think, that there was a conspir- 
 acy; that it originated with Joseph 
 Knapp; that defendant became a party 
 to it, and was one of its conductors, 
 from first to last. One of the most 
 powerful circumstances is Palmer's let- 
 ter from Belfast. The amount of this 
 is a direct charge on the Knapps of the 
 authorship of this murder. How did 
 they treat this charge; like honest men, 
 or like guilty men? "We have seen how 
 it was treated. Joseph Knapp fabricat- 
 ed letters, chai-ging another person, and 
 caused them to be put into the post- 
 office. 
 
 I shall now proceed on the supposi- 
 tion, that it is proved that there was a 
 conspiracy to murder Mr. "White, and 
 that the prisoner was party to it. 
 
 The second and the material inquiry 
 is. Was the prisoner present at the mur- 
 der, aiding and abetting therein? 
 
 This leads to the legal question in the 
 case. "VMiat does the law moan, when 
 it says, that, in order to charge him as a 
 principal, "he must be present aiding 
 and abetting in the murder "? 
 
 In the language of the late Chief Jus- 
 tice, " It is not required that the abet- 
 tor shall be actually upon the spot when 
 the murder is committed, or even in 
 sight of the more immediate perpetra- 
 tor of the victim, to make him a princi 
 pal. If he be at a distance, co-operat- 
 ing in the act, by watching to prevent 
 relief, or to give an alarm, or to assist 
 his confederate in escape, having knowl- 
 
208 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 edge of the purpose and object of the 
 assassin, this in the eye of the law is 
 being present, aiding and abetting, so 
 as to make him a principal in the mur- 
 der." 
 
 " If he be at a distance co-operating." 
 This is not a distance to be mea.sured 
 by feet or rods; if the intent to lend aid 
 combine with a knowledge that the mur- 
 der is to be committed, and the person 
 60 intending be so situate that he can by 
 any possibility lend this aid in any man- 
 ner, then he is present in legal contem- 
 plation. He need not lend any actual 
 aid ; to be ready to assist is assisting. 
 
 There are two sorts of murder; the 
 distinction between them it is of essen- 
 tial importance to bear in mind: 1. Mur-. 
 der in an affray, or upon sudden and 
 unexpected provocation. 2. Murder se- 
 cretly, with a deliberate, predetermined 
 intention to commit the crime. Under 
 the first class, the question usually is, 
 whether the offence be murder or man- 
 slaughter, in the person who commits 
 the deed. Under the second class, it is 
 often a question whether others than he 
 who actually did the deed were present, 
 aiding and assisting therein. Offences 
 of this kind ordinarily happen when 
 there is nobody present except those who 
 go on the same design. If a riot should 
 happen in the court-house, and one 
 should kill another, this may be mur- 
 der, or it may not, according to the in- 
 tention with which it was done; which 
 is always matter of fact, to be collected 
 from the circumstances at the time. 
 But in secret murders, premeditated and 
 determined on, there can be no doubt of 
 the murderous intention ; there can be 
 no doubt, if a person be present, know- 
 ing a murder is to be done, of his con- 
 curring in the act. Ilis being there is a 
 proof of his intent to aid and abet; else, 
 why is he there? 
 
 It has been contended, that proof 
 must be given that the person accused 
 did actually afford aid, did lend a hand 
 in the murder itself; and without this 
 proof, although he may be near by, he 
 niay be presumed to be there for an in- 
 nocent purj^ose ; he may have crept si- 
 lently there to hear the news, or from 
 
 mere curiosity to see what was going 
 on.^ Preposterous, absurd I Such an 
 idea shocks all common sense. A man 
 is found to be a conspirator to commit a 
 murder; he has planned it; he has as- 
 sisted in arranging the time, the place 
 and the means; and he is foimd in the 
 place, and at the time, and yet it is sug- 
 gested that he might have been there, 
 not for co-operation and concui-rence, 
 but from curiositj'I Such an argument 
 deserves no answer. It would be dilB- 
 cidt to give it one, in decorous terms. 
 Is it not to be taken for granted, that a 
 man .seeks to accomplish his own pur- 
 poses'? 'Wlien he has planned a mur- 
 der, and is present at its execution, is he 
 there to forward or to thwart his own 
 design? is he there to assist, or there to 
 prevent:^ But " Curiosity " ! lie may 
 be there from mere " curiosity " ! Cuii- 
 osity to witness the success of the execu- 
 tion of his own plan of murder I The 
 very walls of a court-house ought not 
 to stand, the ploughshare should run 
 through the ground it stands on, where 
 such an argument could find toleration.^ 
 It is not uecessaiy that the abettor 
 should actually lend a hand, that he 
 should take a part in the act itself ; if he 
 be present ready to assist, that is assist- 
 ing. Some of the doctrines advanced 
 would acquit the defendant, though he 
 had grone to the bedchamber of the de- 
 ceased, though he had been standing by 
 when the assassin gave the blow. This 
 is the argument we have heard to-day. 
 
 The court here said, they did not so under- 
 stand the argument of the counsel for de- 
 fendant. Mr. Dexter said. " Ti.e intent and 
 power alone must co-operate." 
 
 Xo doubt the law is. that being ready 
 to assist is assisting, if the party has the 
 power to assist, in case of need. It is so 
 stated by Foster, who is a high author- 
 ity. " If A happeneth to be present at 
 a nmrder, for instance, and taketh no 
 part in it, nor eudeavoreth to prevent 
 it, nor apprehendeth the murderer, nor 
 
 1 This seems to have been actually the cas* 
 as regards J. F. Knapp. 
 
 ^ And yet this arpunient, so ahsurd in Mr. 
 Webster's upiuiuD, was based on the exact fact. 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 209 
 
 jevyeth hue and cry after him, this 
 strange behavior of his, though highly 
 criminal, will not of itself render him 
 either principal or accessory." " But if 
 a fact amounting to mm-der should be 
 committed in prosecution of some un- 
 lawful purpose, though it were but a 
 bare trespass, to which A in the case 
 last stated had consented, and he had 
 gone in order to give assistance, if need 
 were, for carrying it into execution, this 
 ■would have amounted to murder in him, 
 and in every person present and joining 
 with liun." "If the fact was com- 
 mitted in prosecution of the original 
 purpose which was unlawful, the whole 
 party will be involved in the guilt of 
 him who gave the blow. For in combi- 
 nations of this kind, the mortal stroke, 
 though given by one of the party, is 
 considered in the eye of the law, and of 
 sound reason too, as given by every in- 
 dividual present and abetting. The per- 
 son actually giving the stroke is no more 
 than the hand or instrument by which 
 the others strike." The author, in speak- 
 ing of being present, means actual pres- 
 ence; not actual in opposition to con- 
 structive, for the law knows no such 
 distinction. There is but one presence, 
 and this is the situation from which aid, 
 or supposed aid, may be rendered. The 
 law does not say where the person is to 
 go, or how near he is to go, but that he 
 must be where he may give assistance, 
 or where the perpetrator may believe 
 that he may be assisted by him. Sup- 
 pose that he is acquainted with the 
 design of the murderer, and has a 
 knowledge of the time when it is to be 
 carried into effect, and goes out with a 
 view to render assistance, if need be; 
 why, then, even though the murderer 
 does not know of this, the person so 
 going out will be an abettor in the 
 murder. 
 
 It is contended that the prisoner at 
 the bar could not be a principal, he being 
 in Brown Street, because he could not 
 there render assistance; and you are 
 called upon to determhie this case, ac- 
 cording as you may be of opinion whether 
 Bro^\^^ Street was, or was not, a suit- 
 able, convenient, well-chosen place to 
 
 aid in this murder. This is not the true 
 question. The uiquiry is not whether 
 you would have selected this place in 
 preference to all others, or whether you 
 would have selected it at all. If the par- 
 ties chose it, why should we doubt about 
 it? How do we know the use they in- 
 tended to make of it, or the kind of aid 
 that he was to afford by being there? 
 The question for you to consider is, Did 
 the defendant go into Brown Street in 
 aid of this murder? Did he go there 
 by agreement, by appointment with the 
 perpetrator? ^ If so, every thing else 
 follows. The main thing, indeed the 
 only thing, is to inquire whether he was 
 in Brown Street by appointment with 
 Richard Crowninshield. It might be 
 to keep general watch; to observe the 
 lights, and advise as to time of access; 
 to meet the murderer on his return, to 
 advise him as to his escape ; to examine 
 his clothes, to see if any marks of blood 
 were upon them ; to f ui-nish exchange of 
 clothes, or new disguise, if necessary; to 
 tell him through what streets he could 
 safely retreat, or whether he could de- 
 posit the club in the place designed ; or 
 it might be without any distinct object, 
 but merely to afford that encourage- 
 ment which would proceed from Rich- 
 ard Crowninshield's consciousness that 
 he was near. It is of no consequence 
 whether, in your opinion, the place was 
 well chosen or not, to afford aid; if it 
 was so chosen, if it was by appointment 
 that he was there, it is enough. Sup- 
 pose Richard Crowninshield, when ap- 
 plied to to commit the murder, had said, 
 " I won't do it unless there can be some 
 one near by to favor my escape ; I won't 
 go unless you will stay in Brown Street. ' ' 
 Upon the gentleman's argument, be 
 would not be an aider and abettor in 
 the murder, because the place was not 
 well chosen ; though it is apparent that 
 the being in the place chosen was a con- 
 dition, without which the murder would 
 never have happened. 
 
 You are to consider the defendant as 
 one in the league, in the combination to 
 commit the murder. If he was there by 
 appointment with the perpetrator, he ia 
 
 I 1 He did not. 
 
 14 
 
210 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 an abettor. The concurrence of the per- 
 petnitur in liis being there is proved by 
 the previous evidence of the conspiracy. 
 If Richard Cro\\'Tiinshield, for any pur- 
 pose wiiatsoever, made it a condition of 
 the agreement, that Frank Knapp should 
 stand as backer, then Frank Knapp was 
 an aider and abettor; no matter what 
 the aid was, or what sort it was, or de- 
 gree, be it ever so little ; even if it were 
 to judge of the hour when it was best 
 to go, or to see when the lights were 
 extinguished, or to give an alarm if 
 any one approached. "WHio better cal- 
 culated to judge of these things than 
 the murderer himself ? and if he so de- 
 termined them, that is sufficient. 
 
 Now as to the facts. Frank Knapp 
 knew that the murder was that night to 
 be committed; he was one of the con- 
 spirators, he knew the object, he knew 
 the time. He had that day been to 
 Wenham to see Joseph, and probably 
 to Danvers to see Richard Crownin- 
 shield, for he kept his motions secret. 
 He had that day hired a horse and chaise 
 of Osborn, and attempted to conceal the 
 purpose for which it was used; he had 
 intentionally left the place and the price 
 blank on Osborn's books. He went to 
 AVenham by the way of Danvers; he 
 had been told the week before to hasten 
 Dick; he had seen the Crowninshields 
 several times within a few days; he had 
 a saddle-horse the Saturday night be- 
 fore; he had seen Mrs. Beckford at 
 Wenham, and knew she woaild not re- 
 turn that night. She had not been 
 away before for six weeks, and prob- 
 ably would not soon be again. He had 
 just come from Wenham. Every day, 
 for the week previous, he had visited 
 «ne or another of these conspirators, 
 save Sunday, and then })robably he saw 
 th'ini in town. When he saw Joseph on 
 tlie (Jth, Joseph had prepared the house, 
 and would naturally tell him of it; there 
 were constant communications between 
 them; daily and nigiitly visitation; too 
 much knowledge of these parties and 
 this transaction, to leave a particle of 
 doubt on the mind of any one, that 
 Frank Knapp knew the murder was to 
 be committed this night. The hour was 
 
 come, and he knew it; if so, and he was 
 in Brown Street, without explaining why 
 he was there, can the jury for a moment 
 doubt whether he was there to counte- 
 nance, aid, or support; or for curiosity 
 alone ; or to learn how the wages of sin 
 and death were earned by the perpe- 
 trator? 
 
 Here Mr. Webster read the law from 
 Hawkins. 1 Hawk. 204, Lib. 1, ch. 88. 
 sec. 7. 
 
 The perpetrator would dei ive courage, 
 and .strength, and confideuce, from the 
 knowledge that one of his associates 
 was near by. If he was in Brown 
 Street, he could have been there for no 
 other purpose. If there for this pur- 
 pose, then he was, in the language of 
 the law, present, aiding and abetting in 
 the murder. 
 
 His interest lay in being somewhere 
 else. If he had nothing to do with the 
 murder, no part to act, why not stay at 
 home? Why should he jeopard bis own 
 life, if it was not agreed that he should 
 be there? He would not voluntarily go 
 where the very place would cause him 
 to swing if detected. He would not 
 voluntarily assimie the place of danger. 
 His taking this place proves that he 
 went to give aid. His stajnng away 
 would have made an alibi. If he had 
 nothing to do with the murder, he 
 would be at home, where he could prove 
 his alibi. He knew he was in danger, 
 because he was guilty of the conspiracy, 
 and, if he had nothing to do, would 
 not expose himself to suspicion or 
 detection. 
 
 Did the prisoner at the bar counte- 
 nance this murder? Did he concur, or 
 did he non-concur, in what the per}«- 
 trator was about to do? 'Would he 
 have tried to shield him? Would he 
 have furnished his cloak for protection? 
 "Woidd he have pointed out a safe way 
 of retreat? As you would answer these 
 que.stions, so you should answer the 
 general question, wlii'tlu'r he was there 
 consenting to the nuirdcr, or whether 
 he was there as a spectator only. 
 
 One word more on this presence, 
 called constructive presence, ^^'hat aid 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 21] 
 
 is to be rendered? Wliere is the line to 
 be drawn, between acting, and omitting 
 to act? Suppose he had been in the 
 house, suppose he had followed the per- 
 petrator to tlie chamber, what could he 
 have done? This was to be a murder 
 by stealth; it was to be a secret assas- 
 sination. It was not their purpose to 
 have an open combat; they were to ap- 
 proach t.'ieir victim unawares, and si- 
 lently give the fatal blow. But if he 
 had been in the chamber, no one can 
 doubt that he would have been an 
 abettor; because of his presence, and 
 ability to render services, if needed. 
 "What service could he have rendered, if 
 there? Could he have helped him to 
 fly? Could he have aided the silence 
 of his movements? Could he have fa- 
 cilitated his retreat, on the first alarm? 
 Surely, this was a case where there was 
 more of safety in going alone than 
 with another; where company would 
 only embarrass. Richard Crowninshield 
 would prefer to go alone. He knew his 
 errand too well. His nerves needed no 
 collateral support. He was not the 
 man to take with him a trembling com- 
 panion. He would prefer to have his 
 aid at a distance. He would not wish 
 to be encumbered by his presence. He 
 would prefer to have him out of the 
 house. He would prefer that he should 
 be in Brown Street. But whether in 
 the chamber, in the house, in the 
 garden, or in the street, whatsoever is 
 aiding in actual presence is aiding in 
 constructive presence; any thing that is 
 aid in one case is aid in the other. ^ 
 
 If, then, the aid be anj'^vhere, so as to 
 embolden the pei-petrator, to afford him 
 hope or confidence in his enterprise, it 
 is the same as though the person stood 
 nt his elbow with his sword dra\vn. His 
 being there ready to act, with the power 
 to act, is what makes him an abettor. 
 
 Here Mr. Webster referred to the cases 
 of Ktlly, of Hyde, and otliers, cited by 
 counsel for tJie defendant, and showed that 
 tliey did not militate with the doctrine for 
 wliich he contended. The difference is, in 
 thosi cases there was open violence ; tliis 
 
 1 4 Hawk. 201, Lib. 4, ch. 29. sec. 8. 
 
 was a case of secret assassination. The 
 aid must meet tlie occasion. Here no act 
 in;! was necessary, hut watching, conceal- 
 ment of escape, management. 
 
 "What are the facts in relation to this 
 presence? Frank Knapp is proved to 
 have been a conspirator, proved to have 
 known that the deed was now to be 
 done. Is it not probable that he was in 
 Brown Street to concur in the murder? 
 There were four conspirators. It was 
 natural that some one of them should 
 go with the perpetrator. Richard Crown 
 inshield was to be the perpetrator; he 
 was to give the blow. There is no evi- 
 dence of any casting of the parts for 
 the others. The defendant would prob- 
 ably be the man to take the second 
 part. He was fond of exploits, he was 
 accustomed to the use of sword-canes 
 and dirks. If any aid was required, 
 he was the man to give it. At least, 
 there is no evidence to the contrary 
 of this. 
 
 Aid could not have been received 
 from Joseph Knapp, or from George 
 Crowninshield. Joseph Knapp was at 
 Wenham, and took good care to prove 
 that he was there. George Crownin- 
 shield has proved satisfactorily where 
 he was; that he was in other company, 
 such as it was, until eleven o'clock. 
 This narrows the inquiry. This de- 
 mands of the prisoner to show, if he 
 was not in this place, where he was. 
 It calls on him loudly to show this, and 
 to show it truly. If he could show it, 
 he would do it. If he does not tell, and 
 that truly, it is against him. The de- 
 fence of an alibi is a double-edged 
 sword. He knew that he was in a sit- 
 uation where he might be called upon 
 to account for himself. If he had had 
 no particular appointment or business 
 to attend to, he woidd have taken care 
 to be able so to account. He would 
 have been out of town, or in some good 
 company. Has he accounted for him- 
 self on that night to your satisfaction? 
 
 The prisoner has attempted to prove 
 an alibi in two ways. In the first place, 
 by four young men with whom he says 
 he was in company, on the evening 
 of the murder, from seven o'clock til) 
 
212 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 near ten o'clock. This depends upon 
 the certainty of the night. In the 
 second place, by his family, from ten 
 o'clock aftenvards. This depends upon 
 the certainty of the time of the night. 
 These two classes of proof have no con- 
 nection with each other. One may be 
 true, and the other false; or they may 
 both be true, or both be false. I shall 
 examine this testimony with some at- 
 tention, because, on a former trial, it 
 made more impression on the minds of 
 the court than on my own mind. I 
 think, when carefully sifted and com- 
 pared, it will be found to have in it 
 more of plausibility than reality'. 
 
 Mr. Page testifies, that on the evening 
 of the 6th of April he was in company 
 with Bui-chmore. Balch. and Forrester, 
 and that he met the defendant about 
 seven o'clock, near the Salem Hotel; 
 that he afterwards met him at Re- 
 mond's, about nine o'clock, and that 
 he was in company with him a consid- 
 erable part of the evening. This young 
 gentleman is a member of college, and 
 says that he came to towai the Saturday 
 evening previous; that he is now able 
 to say tliat it was the night of the mur- 
 der when he walked with Frank Knajip, 
 from the recollection of the fact, that 
 he called himself to an account, on the 
 morning after the murder, as it is nat- 
 ural for men to do when an extraor- 
 dinary occurrence happens. Gentlemen, 
 this kind of evidence is not satisfactory'; 
 general impressions as to time are not 
 to be relied on. If I were called on to 
 state the particular day on which any 
 witness testified in this cause, I could 
 not do it. Every man will notice the 
 same thing in his own mind. There is 
 no one of these vonng men that could 
 give an account of himself for any other 
 day in the month of April. They are 
 made to remember the fact, and then 
 they think they remember the time. 
 The witness has no means of knowing 
 it was Tuesday rather than any other 
 time. He did not know it at first; he 
 could not know it afterwards. He says 
 he called himself to an account. This 
 has no more to do with the murder than 
 with the man in the moon. Such testi- 
 
 mony is not worthy to be relied on in 
 any fort^--shilling cause. What occasion 
 had he to call himself to an account? 
 Did he suppose that he should be sus- 
 pected? Had he any intimation of this 
 conspiracy? 
 
 Suppose, Gentlemen, you were either 
 of you asked where you were, or whut 
 you were doing, on the fifteenth day of 
 June ; you could not answer this ques- 
 tion without calling to mind some events 
 to make it certain. Just as well may 
 you remember on what you dined each 
 day of the year past. Time is identical. 
 Its subdivisions are all alike. Xo man 
 knows one day from another, or one 
 hour from another, but by some fact 
 connected with it. Days and hours are 
 not visible to the senses, nor to be appre- 
 hended and distinguished by the under- 
 standing. The flow of time is known 
 only by something which marks it ; and 
 he who speaks of the date of occurrences 
 with nothing to guide his recollection 
 speaks at random, and is not to be relied 
 on. This young gentleman remembers 
 the facts and occurrences; he knows 
 nothing why they should not have hap- 
 pened on the evening of tlie Gth ; but he 
 knows no more. All the rest is evi- 
 dently conjecture or impression. 
 
 Mr. ^^^lite informs you, that he told 
 him he could not tell what niijht it was. 
 The first thoughts are all that are valu- 
 able in such case. They miss the mark 
 b)- taking i^econd aim. 
 
 Mr. Balch believes, but is not sure, 
 that he was with Frank Knapp on the 
 evening of the murder. He has given 
 different accounts of the time. He lias 
 no means of making it certain All he 
 knows is, that it was some evening be- 
 fore Fast-day. But whether ^Monday, 
 Tuesday, or Saturday, he cannot tell. 
 
 Mr. Burchmore says, to the best of 
 his belief, it was the evening of the 
 murder. Afterwards he attempts to 
 speak positively, from recollecting that 
 he mentioned the circumstance to Wil- 
 liam Peirce, as he went to the ^Mineral 
 Spring on Fast-day. Last Monday 
 morning he told Colonel Putnam he 
 could not fix the time. This witness 
 stands in a much worse plight thau 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 213 
 
 either of the others. It is difficult to 
 reconcile all he has said with any belief 
 in the accuracy of his recollections. 
 
 Mr. Forrester does not speak with any 
 certainty as to the night; and it is very 
 certain that he told Mr. Loring and oth- 
 ers, that he did not know what night it 
 was. 
 
 Now, what does the testimony of 
 these four young men amount to? The 
 only circumstance by which they ap- 
 proximate to an identifying of the night 
 is, that three of them say it was cloudy; 
 they think their walk was either on 
 ^Monday or Tuesday evening, and it is 
 admitted that IMonday evening was 
 clear, whence they draw the inference 
 that it must have been Tuesday. 
 
 But, fortunately, there is one fact 
 disclosed in their testimony that settles 
 the question. Balch says, that on the 
 evening, whenever it was, he saw the 
 prisoner; the prisoner told him he was 
 going out of town on horseback, for a 
 distance of about twenty minutes' drive, 
 and that he was going to get a horse at 
 Osborn's. This was about seven o'clock. 
 At about nine, Balch says he saw the 
 prisoner again, and was then told by 
 him that he had had his ride, and had 
 returned. Now it appears by Osborn's 
 books, that the prisoner had a saddle- 
 liorse from his stable, not on Tuesday 
 evening, the night of the murder, but 
 on the Saturday evening previous. This 
 fixes the time about which these young 
 men testify, and is a complete answer 
 and refutation of the attempted alibi on 
 Tuesday evening. 
 
 I come now to speak of the testimony 
 adduced by the defendant to explain 
 where he was after ten o'clock on the 
 night of the murder. This comes chiefly 
 from members of the family ; from his 
 father and brothers. 
 
 It is agreed that the affidavit of the 
 prisoner should be received as evidence 
 of what his brother, Samuel H. Knapp, 
 would testify if present. Samuel H. 
 Knapp says, that, about ten minutes 
 past ten o'clock, his brother, Frank 
 Knapp, on his way to bed, opened his 
 chamber door, made some remarks, 
 
 closed the door, and went to his cham- 
 ber ; and that he did not hear him leave 
 it afterwards. How is this witness able 
 to fix the time at ten minutes past ten? 
 There is no circumstance mentioned by 
 which he fixes it. He had been in bed, 
 probably asleep, and was aroused from 
 his sleep by the opening of the door. 
 Was he in a situation to speak of time 
 with precision? Could he know, under 
 such circumstances, whetlier it was ten 
 minutes past ten, or ten minutes be- 
 fore eleven, when his brother spoke to 
 him? "What would be the natural re- 
 sult in such a case? But we are not left 
 to conjecture this result. "We have 
 positive testimony on this point. Mr. 
 Webb tells you that Samuel told him, 
 on the 8th of June, " that he did not 
 know what time his brother Frank came 
 home, and that he was not at home when 
 Tie went to bed." You will consider 
 this testimony of Mr. Webb as indorsed 
 upon this affidavit; and with this in- 
 dorsement upon it, you will give it its 
 due weight. This statement was made 
 to him after Frank was arrested. 
 
 I come to the testimony of the father. 
 I find myself incapable of speaking of 
 him or his testimony with severity. Un- 
 fortunate old man! Another Lear, in 
 the conduct of his children; another 
 Lear, 1 apprehend, in the effect of his 
 distress upon his mind and understand- 
 ing. He is brought here to testify, un 
 der circumstances that disarm severity, 
 and call loudly for sympathy. Though 
 it is impossible not to see that his story 
 cannot be credited, yet I am unable to 
 speak of him otherwise than in sorrow 
 and grief. Unhappy father! he strives 
 to remember, perhaps persuades himself 
 that he does remember, that on the even- 
 in cr of the murder he was himself at 
 home at ten o'clock. He thinks, or 
 seems to think, that his son came in at 
 about five minutes past ten. He fancies 
 that he remembers his conversation ; he 
 thinks he spoke of bolting the door; he 
 thinks he asked the time of night; 
 he seems to remember his then going to 
 his bed. Alas ! these are but the swim- 
 ming fancies of an agitated and distressed 
 mind. Alas! they are but the dreams 
 
214: 
 
 THE MURDER OF CArTAIN JOSEm WHITE. 
 
 of hope, its uncertain lights, flickering 
 on the thick darkness of parental dis- 
 tress. Alas ! the miserable father knows 
 nothing, in reality, of all these things. 
 
 Mr. Shepard says that the first con- 
 versation he had with Mr. Knapp was 
 soon after the murder, and be/ore the 
 arrest of his sons. Mr. Knapp says it 
 was after the arrest of his sons. His 
 own fears led him to say to Mr. Shep- 
 ard, that his "son Frank was at home 
 that night; and so Phippen told him," 
 or "as rhippen told him." Mr. Shep- 
 ard says that he was struck with the 
 remark at the time; that it made an 
 unfavorable impression on his mind; 
 he does not tell you what that impression 
 was, but when you connect it with the 
 previous inquiry he had made, whether 
 Frank had continued to associate with 
 the Crowninshields, and recollect that 
 the Crowninshields were then kno^^^l 
 to be suspected of this crime, cau you 
 doubt what this impression was? can you 
 doubt as to the fears he then had? 
 
 This poor old man tells you, that he 
 was greatly perplexed at the time ; that 
 he found himself in embarrassed cir- 
 cumstances ; that on this very night he 
 was engaged in making an assignment 
 of his property to his friend, Mr. Shep- 
 ard. If ever charity should furnish a 
 mantle for error, it should be here. Im- 
 agination cannot picture a more deplora- 
 ble, distressed condition. 
 
 The same general remarks may be 
 applied to his conversation with Mr. 
 Treadwell, as have been made upon that 
 with ^Ir. Shepard. He told him, that 
 he believed Frank was at home about 
 the usual time. In his conversations 
 with either of these persons, he did not 
 pretend to know, of his own knowledge, 
 the time that he came home. He now 
 tells you positively that he recollects the 
 time, and that he so told ]Mr. Shepard. 
 He is directly contradicted by both these 
 witnesses, as respectable men as Salem 
 affords. 
 
 Tliis idea of an alibi is of recent ori- 
 gin. Would Samuel Knapp have gone 
 to sea if it were then thought of? His 
 testimony, if true, was too important to 
 be lost. If there be any truth in this 
 
 part of the alihi, it is so near in pomt Oi. 
 time that it cannot be relied on The 
 mere variation of half an hour woidd 
 avoid it. The mere variations of diifer- 
 ent timepieces would explain it. 
 
 Has the defendant proved where he 
 was on that night? If you doubt about 
 it, there is an end of it. The burden 
 is upon him to satisfy you beyoud ;ill 
 reasonable doubt. Osborn's bookf, iu 
 connection with what the joung it^eu 
 state, are conclusive, I think, on this 
 point. He has not, then, accounted for 
 himself; he has attempted it, and has 
 failed. I pray you to remember. Gen- 
 tlemen, that this is a case in which the 
 prisoner would, more than any other, be 
 rationally able to account for himself on 
 the night of the murder, if he could do 
 so. He was in the conspiracy, he knew 
 the murder was then to be committed, 
 and if he himself was to have no hand 
 in its actual execution, he would of 
 course, as a matter of safety and precau- 
 tion, be somewhere else, and be able to 
 prove afterwards that he had been some- 
 where else. Having this motive to prove 
 himself elsewhere, and the power to do 
 it if he were elsewhere, his failing in 
 such proof must necessarily leave a very 
 strong inference against him. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, let us now consider 
 what is the evidence produced on the 
 part of the government to prove that 
 John Francis Knapp, the prisoner at the 
 bar, was in Brown Street on the night 
 of the murder. This is a point of vital 
 importance in this cause. Unless this 
 be made out, beyond reasonable doubt, 
 the law of presence does not apply to the 
 case. The goveniment undertake to 
 prove that he was present aiding in the 
 murder, by proving that he was in Btonnti 
 Street for this purpose. Now, wiiat are 
 the undoubted facts? They are, that 
 two persons were seen in that street, 
 several times during that evening, under 
 suspicious circumstances; mider such 
 circumstances as induced those who saw 
 them to watch their movements. Of 
 this tliere can be no doubt. Mirick 
 saw a man standing at the post opposite 
 his store from fifteen minutes before 
 nine until tAventy minutes after, dressM 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 215 
 
 in a full frock-coat, glazed cap, and so 
 forth, in size and general appearance 
 answering to the prisoner at tlie bar. 
 This person was waiting there; and 
 whenever any one approached hiin, he 
 moved to and from tlie corner, as tliough 
 he would avoid being suspected or rec- 
 ognized. Afterwards, two persons were 
 seen by ^Vebster, walking in Howard 
 Street, with a slow, deliberate movement 
 that attracted his attention. This was 
 about half-past nine. One of these he 
 took to be the prisoner at the bar, the 
 other he did not know. 
 
 About half-past ten a person is seen 
 sitting on the rope-walk steps, wrapped 
 in a cloak. He drops his head when 
 passed, to avoid being known. Sliortly 
 after, two persons are seen to meet in this 
 street, without ceremony or salutation, 
 and in a hurried manner to converse for 
 a short time; then to separate, and run 
 off with great speed. Now, on this same 
 night a gentleman is slain, murdered 
 in his bed, his house being entered by 
 stealth from without ; and his house sit- 
 uated within three hundred feet of this 
 street. The wdndows of his chamber 
 were in plain sight from this street; a 
 weapon of death is afterwards found in 
 a place where these persons were seen to 
 pass, in a retired place, around which 
 they had been seen lingering. It is now 
 known that this murder was committed 
 by four persons, conspiring together for 
 this purpose. No account is given who 
 these suspected persons thus seen in 
 Brown Street and its neighborhood were. 
 Now, I ask, Gentlemen, whether you or 
 any man can doubt that this murder was 
 committed by the persons who were thus 
 in and al)Out Brown Street. Can any 
 pereon doubt that they were there for 
 purposes connected with this murder? 
 If not for this purpose, what were they 
 there for? When there is a cause so 
 near at hand, why wander into conjec- 
 ture for an explanation? Common-sense 
 requires you to take the nearest ade- 
 quate cause for a known efiect. "\Mio 
 were these suspicious persons in Brown 
 Street? There was something extraor- 
 dinary about them; something notice- 
 able, and noticed at the time; something 
 
 in their appearance that aroused suspi- 
 cion. And a man is found the next 
 morning murdered in the near vicinity. 
 
 Now, so long as no other account shall 
 be given of those suspicious persons, so 
 long the inference must remain irresisti- 
 ble that they were the murderers. I^^t 
 it be remembered, that it is already 
 shown that this nmrder was the result 
 of conspiracy and of concert; let it l>e 
 remembered, that the house, having 
 been opened from within, was entered 
 by stealth from without. Let it be 
 remembered that Brown Street, where 
 these persons were repeatedly seen under 
 such suspicious circimistances, was a place 
 from which every occupied room in Mr. 
 White's house is clearly seen; let it he- 
 re me mbered, that the place, though thu.s 
 very near to ^Ir. White's house, is a re- 
 tired and lonely place; and let it be re- 
 membered that the instrument of death, 
 was afterwards found concealed very, 
 near the same spot. 
 
 Must not every man come to the con- 
 clusion, that these persons thus seen, 
 in Brown Street were the murderers? 
 Every man's own judgment, I think,, 
 must satisfy him that this must be so.. 
 It is a plain deduction of common sense. 
 It is a point on which each one of you. 
 may reason like a Hale or a ^Mansfield. 
 The two occurrences explain each other. 
 The murder shows why these persons- 
 were thus lurking, at that hour, in Brown 
 Street; and their lurking in Brown Street, 
 shows who committed the murder. 
 
 If, then, the persons in and about; 
 Brown Street were the plotters and exe- 
 cuters of the mm-der of Captain White,. 
 we know who they were, and you know 
 that tliere is one of them. 
 
 This fearful concartenation of circum» 
 stances puts him to an account. He 
 was a conspirator. He had entered into 
 this plan of murder. The murder is 
 committed, and he is known to have 
 been within three minutes' walk of the 
 place. He must account for himself. 
 He has attempted this, and failed.. 
 Then, with all these general reasons to 
 show he was actually in Brown Street, 
 and liis failures in his alibi, let us see 
 what is the direct proof of hLs being 
 
216 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH T^HITE. 
 
 there. But first, let me ask, is it not 
 very remarkable that there is no attempt 
 to show where Richard Crowniushield, 
 Jr. was on that night? "We hear noth- 
 ing of him. He was seen in none of his 
 usual haunts about the town. Yet, if 
 he was the actual perpetrator of the mur- 
 der, which nobody doubts, he was in the 
 town somewhere. Can you, therefore, 
 entertain a doubt that he was one of 
 the persons seen in Brown Street? And 
 a-s to the prisoner, you will recollect, 
 that, since the testimony of the young 
 men has failed to show where he was on 
 thai evening, the last we hear or know 
 of l.m, on the day preceding the mur- 
 der, is, that at four o'clock, p. m., he 
 was at his brother's in Wenham. He 
 had left home, after dinner, in a manner 
 doubtless designed to avoid observation, 
 and had gone to Wenham, probably by 
 way of Dan vers. As we hear nothing 
 of him after four o'clock, p. M., for the 
 remainder of the day and evening; as he 
 was one of the conspirators; as Richard 
 Crowniushield, Jr. was another; as 
 Richard Crowniushield, Jr. was in town 
 in the evening, and yet seen in no usual 
 place of resort, — the inference is very 
 fair, that Richard Crowninshield, Jr. 
 and the prisoner were together, acting 
 in execution of their conspiracy. Of 
 the four conspirators, J. J. Knapp, Jr. 
 was at Wenham, and George Crownin- 
 shield has been accounted for; so that 
 if the persons seen in Brown Street were 
 the murderers, one of them must have 
 been Richard Crowninshield, Jr., and 
 the other must have been the prisoner at 
 tlie bar. 
 
 Now, as to the proof of his identity 
 with one of the persons seen in Brown 
 Street. Mr. Mirick, a cautious witness, 
 examined the person he saw, closely, in 
 a light night, and says that he thinks 
 the prisoner at the bar is the person ; and 
 that he should not hesitate at all, if he 
 were seen in the same dress. His opin- 
 ion is formed partly from his own obser- 
 vation, and partly from the description 
 of others. But this description turns 
 out to be only in regard to the dress. It 
 is said, that he is now more confident 
 th.an on the former trial. If he has 
 
 varied in his testimony make such al- 
 lowance as you may think proper. I do 
 not perceive any material variance. He 
 thought him the same person, when he 
 was first brought to court, and as he saw 
 him get out of the chaise. This is one 
 of the cases in which a witness is per- 
 mitted to give an opinion. This wit- 
 ness is as honest as yourselves, neither 
 willing nor swift; but he says, he be- 
 lieves it was the man. His words are, 
 " This is my opinion " ; and this opinion 
 it is proper for him to give. If partly 
 founded on what he has heard, then this 
 opinion is not to be taken; but if on 
 what he saiv, then you can have no better 
 evidence. I lay no stress on similarity 
 of dress. No man will ever lose his life 
 by my voice on such evidence. But 
 then it is proper to notice, that no infer- 
 ences drawn from any dissimilarity of 
 dress can be given in the prisoner's 
 favor; because, in fact, the person seen 
 by ^lirick was dressed like the prisoner. 
 
 The description of the person seen by 
 Mirick answers to that of the prisoner 
 at the bar. In regard to the supposed 
 discrepancy of statements, before and 
 now, there woidd be no end to such 
 minute inquiries. It would not be 
 strange if witnesses should vary. I do 
 not think much of slight shades of varia- 
 tion. If I believe the witness is honest, 
 that is enough. If he has expressed 
 himself more strongly now than then, 
 this does not prove him false. 
 
 Peter E. Webster saw the prisoner at 
 the bar, as he then thought, and still 
 thinks, walking in Howard Street at 
 half-past nine o'clock. He then thought 
 it was Frank Knapp, and has not altered 
 his opinion since. He knew him well; 
 he had long known him. If he then 
 thought it was he, this goes far to prove 
 it. He observed him the more, as it was 
 unusual to see gentlemen walk there at 
 that hour. It was a retired, lonely street. 
 Now, is there reasonable doubt that Mr. 
 Webster did see him there that night? 
 How can you have more proof than this? 
 He judged by his walk, by his general 
 appearance, by his deportment. AVe all 
 judge in this manner If you believe 
 he is right, it goes a gi-eat way in this 
 
THE MURDER OF CArXAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 21T 
 
 ease. But then this person, it is said, 
 had a cloak on, and that he couhi not, 
 therefore, be the same person that ]\Iirick 
 saw. If we were treating of men that 
 had no occasion to disguise themselves 
 or their conduct, there might be some- 
 thing in this argument. But as it is, 
 lliere is little in it. It may be presimied 
 that they would change their dress. This 
 would help their disguise. What is easier 
 than to throw off a cloak, and again put 
 it on? Perhaps he was less fearful of 
 being known when alone, than when 
 with the perpetrator. 
 
 ]Mr. Southwick swears all that a man 
 can swear. He has the best means of 
 judging that could be had at the time. 
 He tells you that he left his father's 
 house at half-past ten o'clock, and as he 
 passed to his own house in Brown Street 
 he saw a man sitting on the steps of the 
 rope-walk; that he passed him three 
 times, and each time he held down his 
 head, so that he did not see his face. That 
 tiie man had on a cloak, which was not 
 wrapi>ed around him, and a glazed cap. 
 That he took the man to be Frank Knapp 
 at the time; that, when he went into his 
 house, he told his wife that he thought 
 it was Frank Knapp; that he knew him 
 well, having known him from a boy. 
 And his wife swears that he did so tell 
 her when he came home. What could 
 mislead this witness at the time? He 
 was not then suspecting Frank Knapp 
 of any thing. He could not then be in- 
 fluenced by any prejudice. If you believe 
 that the -nitness saw Frank Knapp in this 
 position at this time, it proves tlie case. 
 Whether you believe it or not depends 
 upon the credit of the witness. He 
 swears it. If true, it is solid evidence. 
 Mrs. Southwick supports her husband. 
 Are they true? Are they worthy of 
 belief? If he deserves the epithets ap- 
 plied to him, then he ought not to be 
 believed. In this fact they cannot be 
 mistaken; they are right, or they are 
 perjured. As to his not speaking to 
 Frank Knapp, that depends upon their 
 intimacy. But a very good reason is, 
 Frank chose to disguise himself. This 
 makes nothing against his credit. But 
 it Lj said that he should not be believed. 
 
 And why? Because, it is said, he him- 
 self now tells you, that, when he testi- 
 fied before the grand jury at Ipswich, he 
 did not then say that he thought the 
 person he saw in Brown Street was 
 Frank Knapp, but that "the person 
 was about the size of Sclman." The 
 means of attacking him, therefore, come 
 from himself. If he is a false man, why 
 should he tell truths against himself? 
 they rely on his veracity to prove that he 
 is a liar. Before you can come to this 
 conclusion, you will consider whether all 
 the circumstances are now known, that 
 should have a bearing on this point. 
 Suppose that, when he was before the 
 grand jury, he was asked by the attor- 
 ney this question, " Was the person you 
 saw in Brown Street about the size of 
 Selman? " and he answered Yes. This 
 was all true. Suppose, also, that he 
 expected to be inquired of further, and 
 no further questions were put to him. 
 Would it not be extremely hard to im- 
 pute to him perjury for this? It is not 
 uncommon for witnesses to think that 
 they have done all their duty, when they 
 have answered the questions put to them. 
 But suppose that we admit that he did 
 not then tell all he knew, this does not 
 affect the fact at all; because he did teU, 
 at the time, in the hearing of others, 
 that the person he saw was Frank Knapp. 
 There is not the slightest suggestion 
 against the veracity or accuracy of Mrs. 
 Southwick. Now she swears positively, 
 that her husband came into the house 
 and told her that he had seen a person 
 on the rope-walk steps, and believed it 
 was Frank Knapp. 
 
 It is said that ]Mr. Southwick is con- 
 tradicted, also, by Mr. Shillaber. I do 
 not so understand Mr. Shillaber's testi- 
 mony. I think what they both testify 
 is reconcilable, and consistent. My 
 learned brother said, on a similar occa- 
 sion, that there is more probability, in 
 such cases, that the persons hearing 
 should misunderstand, than that the 
 person speaking should contradict him- 
 self. I think the same remark appli- 
 cable here. 
 
 You have all witnessed the uncer- 
 tainty of testimony, when witnesses are 
 
218 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSKPII WHITE. 
 
 called to testify what other witnesses 
 said. Several respectable counsellors 
 have been summoned, on this occasion, 
 to give testimony of that sort. They 
 have, every one of them, given different 
 versions. They all took minutes at the 
 time, and without doubt intend to state 
 the truth. But still they differ. Mr. 
 Shillabcr's version is different from 
 every thing that Southwick has stated 
 elsewhere. But little reliance is to be 
 placed on slight variations in testimony, 
 unless thoy are manifestly intentional. 
 1 think that Mr. Shillalier must be sat- 
 isfied that he did not rightly understand 
 Mr. Southwick. I confess I misunder- 
 stood Mr. Shillaber on the former trial, 
 if I now rightly understand him. I, 
 therefore, did no( then recall Mr. South- 
 wick to the stand. Mr. Southwick, as I 
 read it, understood Mr. Shillaber as ask- 
 ing him about a pei-son coming out of 
 Newbury Street, and whether, for aught 
 he knew, it might not be Richard 
 Crowninshield, Jr. He answered, that 
 he could not tell. He did not under- 
 stand Mr. Shillaber as questioning him 
 as to the person whom he saw sitting on 
 the steps of the rope-walk. Southwick, 
 on this trial, having heard Mr. Shillaber, 
 has been recalled to the stand, and states 
 that Mr. Shillaber entirely misunder- 
 stood him. This is certainly most prob- 
 able, because the controlling fact in the 
 case is not controverted; that is, that 
 Southwick did tell his wife, at the very 
 moment he entered liis house, that he 
 had seen a person on the rope-walk steps, 
 whom he believed to be Frank Knapp. 
 Nothing can prove with more certainty 
 than tills, that Southwick, at the time, 
 ikouyht the person whom he thus saw to 
 be the prisoner at the bar. 
 
 Mr. Bray is an acknowledged accu- 
 rate and intelligent witness. He was 
 higiily complimented by my brother on 
 the foinier trial, altliough he now charges 
 him witii varying his testimony. What 
 could be his motive? You will be slow 
 in. imiuiting to him any design of this 
 kind. I deny altogether that there is 
 any contradiction. There may be dif- 
 ferences, but not contratliction. These 
 arise from the difference in the questions 
 
 put; the difference between believing 
 and knowing. On the first trial, he 
 said he did not know the person, and 
 now says the same. Then, we did not 
 do all we had a right to do. We did not 
 ask him who he thought it was. Now, 
 when so asked, he says he believes it 
 was the prisoner at the bar. If he had 
 then been asked this question, he would 
 have given the same answer. That he 
 has expressed himself more strongly, I 
 admit; but he has not contradicted him- 
 .self. He is more confident now; and 
 that is all. A man may not assert a 
 thing, and still may have no doubt upon 
 it. Cannot every man see this distinc- 
 tion to be consistent? I leave him in 
 that attitude; that only is the difference. 
 On questions of identity, opinion is evi- 
 dence. We may ask the witness, either 
 if he knew who the person seen was, or 
 who he thinks he was. And he may 
 well answer, as Captain Bray has an- 
 swered, that he does not know who it 
 was, but that he thinks it was the pris- 
 oner. 
 
 We have offered to produce witnesses 
 to prove, that, as soon as Bray saw tlie 
 prisoner, he pronounced him the same 
 person. "We are not at liberty to call 
 them to corroborate our own witness. 
 How, then, could this fact of the pris- 
 oner's being in Brown Street be better 
 proved? If ten witnesses had testified 
 to it, it would be no better. Two men, 
 who knew him well, took it to be Frank 
 Knapp, and one of them so said, when 
 there was nothing to mislead them. 
 Two others, who examined him closely, 
 now swear to their opinion that he is the 
 man. 
 
 Mi.ss Jaqneth saw three persons pas3 
 by the rope-walk, several evenings before 
 the nmrder. She saw one of them point- 
 ing towards Mr. White's house. She 
 noticed that another had something 
 which appeared to be like an instru- 
 ment of music; that he put it behind 
 him and attempted to conceal it. Who 
 were these persons? Tliis was but a 
 few steps from tiie place where this ap- 
 parent instrument of music (of mugic 
 such as Richard Crowninshield, Jr. 
 s^wke of to Palmer) was afterwards 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 219 
 
 fonnd. These facts prove this a point 
 of rendezvous for these parties. They 
 Bhow Brown Street to have been the 
 place for consultation and observation ; 
 and to this purpose it was well suited. 
 
 Mr. Burns's testimony is also impor- 
 tant. What was the lefendant's object 
 in his private conversation with Burns? 
 lie knew that Burns was out that night; 
 that he lived near Brown Street, and 
 that he had probably seen him; and he 
 wished him to say nothing. He said to 
 Burns, " If you saw any of your friends 
 out that night, say nothing about it; 
 my brother Joe and I are your friends." 
 This is plain proof that he wished to say 
 to him, if you saw me in Brown Street 
 that night, say nothing about it. 
 
 But it is said that Burns ought not to 
 be belies'ed, because he mistook the color 
 of the dagger, and because he has varied 
 in his description of it. These are slight 
 circumstances, if his general character 
 be good. To my mind they are of no 
 importance. It is for you to make what 
 deduction you may think proper, on this 
 account, from the weight of his evidence. 
 His conversation with Burns, if Burns 
 is believed, shows two things; first, that 
 he desired Burns not to mention it, if he 
 had seen him on the night of the mur- 
 der; second, that he wished to fix the 
 charge of murder on Mr. Stephen White. 
 Both of these prove his own guilt. 
 
 I think you will be of opinion, that 
 Brown Street was a probable place for 
 the conspirators to assemble, and for an 
 aid to be stationed. If we knew their 
 whole plan, and if we were skilled to 
 judge in such a case, then we could per- 
 haps determine on this point better. 
 But it is a retired place, and still com- 
 mands a full view of the house ; a lonely 
 place, but still a place of observation. 
 Not so lonely that a person would excite 
 su.spicion to be seen walking there in an 
 ordinary manner; not so public as to be 
 noticed bv many- It is near enough to 
 the scene of action in point of law. It 
 was their point of centrality. The club 
 was found near the spot, in a place pro- 
 vided for it, in a place that had been 
 previously hunted out, in a concerted 
 place of concealment. Here was their 
 
 point of rendezvous. Here might the 
 lights be seen. Here miglit an aid be 
 secreted. Here was he within call. 
 Here miglit he be arou.sed by the sound 
 of the whistle. Here might he caiTy the 
 weapon. Here might lie receive the 
 murderer after the murder. 
 
 Then, Gentlemen, the general que.>i- 
 tion occurs, Is it satisfactorily proved. 
 by all these facts and circumstances, 
 that the defendant was in and about 
 Brown Street on the night of the mur- 
 der? Considering that the murder was 
 effected by a conspiracy; consideiing 
 that he was one of the four conspirators: 
 considering that two of the conspirator? 
 have accounted for themselves on the 
 night of the murder, and were not in 
 Brown Street; considering that the pris- 
 oner does not account for himself, nor 
 show where he was; considering tliat 
 Richard Crowninshield, the other con- 
 spirator and the perpetrator, is not ac- 
 counted for, nor shown to be elsewhere; 
 considering that it is now past all doubt 
 that two persons were seen lurking iu 
 and about Brown Street at different 
 times, avoiding observation, and excit 
 ing so much suspicion that the neigh 
 bors actually watched them; considering 
 that, if these persons thus lurking in 
 Bi-own Street at that hour were not the 
 murderers, it remains to this day wholly 
 unknown who they were or what theii 
 business was; considering the testimony 
 of Miss Jaqueth, and that the club was 
 afterwards found near this place ; consid- 
 ering, finally, that Webster and South- 
 wick saw these persons, and tlien took 
 one of them for the defendant, and that 
 Southwick then told his wife so, and 
 that Bray and ^lirick examined them 
 closely, and now swear to their belief 
 that the prisoner was one of them ; — it 
 is for you to say, putting these consider- 
 ations together, whether you believe the 
 prisoner was actually in Brown Street 
 at the time of the mui'der. 
 
 By the counsel for the prisoner, much 
 stress has been laid upon the question, 
 whether Brown Street was a place in 
 which aid could be given, a place in 
 which actual assistance could be ren- 
 dered in this transaction. This mu.st be 
 
■220 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH TVHITE. 
 
 mainly decided by their own opinion 
 who selected the place; by what they 
 thought at the time, according to their 
 plan of operation. 
 
 If it was agreed that the prisoner 
 should be there to assist, it is enough. 
 If they tliought the place proper for their 
 purpose, according to their plan, it is 
 BulBcient. Suppose we could prove ex- 
 pressly that they agreed that Frank 
 should be there, and he was there, and 
 you should think it not a well-chosen 
 place for aiding and abetting, must he 
 be acquitted? No! It is not what / 
 think or you think of the appropriate- 
 ness of the place; it is what they thought 
 at the time. If the prisoner was in 
 Brown Street by appointment and agree- 
 ment with the perpetrator, for the pur- 
 pose of giving assistance if assistance 
 should be needed, it may safely be pre- 
 sumed that the place was suited to such 
 assistance as it was supposed by the par- 
 ties might chance to become requisite. 
 
 If in Brown Street, was he there by 
 appointment? was he there to aid, if 
 aid were necessary? was he there for, 
 or against, the murderer? to concur, or 
 to oppose? to favor, or to thwart? Did 
 the perpetrator know he was there, there 
 waiting ? If so, then it follows that he 
 was there by appointment. He was at 
 the post half an hour; he was waiting 
 for somebody. This proves appoint- 
 ment, arrangement, previous agreement ; 
 then it follows that he was there to aid, 
 to encourage, to embolden the perpetra- 
 tor; and that is enough. If he w'ere in 
 such a situation as to afford aid, or that 
 he was relied upon for aid, then he was 
 aiding and abetting. It is enough that 
 the conspirator desired to have him 
 there. Besides, it may be well said, that 
 he could afford just as much aid there a.s 
 if he had been in Essex Street, as if he 
 had been standing even at the gate, or 
 at the window. It was not an act of 
 power against power that was to be done ; 
 it was a secret act, to be done by stealth. 
 The aid was to be placed in a position 
 pecure from observation. It was impor- 
 tant to tiie security of both that he 
 sliould be in a lonoly place. Xow it is 
 obvious that there are many purposes 
 
 for which he might be in Brown 
 Street. 
 
 1. Richard Crowninshield might have 
 been secreted in the garden, and wait- 
 ing for a signal: 
 
 2. Or he might be in Brown Street to 
 advise him as to the time of making hia 
 entry into the house; 
 
 3. Or to favor his escape; 
 
 4. Or to see if the street was clear 
 when he came out; 
 
 5. Or to conceal the weapon or the 
 clothes ; 
 
 6. To be ready for any unforeseen 
 contingency. 
 
 Richard Crowninshield lived in Dan- 
 vers. He would retire by the most se- 
 cret way. Brown Street is that way. 
 If you find him there, can you doubt 
 why he was there? 
 
 If, Gentlemen, the prisoner went into 
 Brown Street, by appointment with the 
 perpetrator, to render aid or encourage- 
 ment in any of these ways, he was pres- 
 ent, in legal contemplation, aiding and 
 abettinof in this murder. It is not 
 necessary that he should have done any 
 thing; it is enough that he was ready to 
 act, and in a place to act. If his being 
 in Brown Street, by appointment, at the 
 time of the murder, emboldened the 
 purpose and encouraged the heart of the 
 murderer, by the hope of instant aid, if 
 aid should become necessary, then, with- 
 out doubt, he was present, aiding and 
 abetting, and was a principal in the 
 murder. 
 
 I now proceed. Gentlemen, to the con- 
 sideration of the testimony of Mr. 
 Colman. Although this evidence bears 
 on every material part of the cause, I 
 have purposely avoided every comment 
 on it till the present moment, wlu-n I 
 have done with the other evidence in the 
 case. As to the admission of this evi- 
 dence, there has been a great struggle, 
 and its importance demanded it. The 
 general rule of law is, that confessions 
 are to be received as evidence. They 
 are entitled to great or to little consid- 
 eration, according to the circumstances 
 under which they are made. A'dluntary, 
 deliberate confessions are the most im- 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 221 
 
 portant and satisfactory evidence, but 
 confessions hastily made, or improperly 
 obtained, are entitled to little or no con- 
 sideration. It is always to be inquired, 
 whether they were purely voluntary, or 
 were made under any undue influence 
 of hope or fear; for, in general, if any 
 influence were exerted on the mind of 
 the person confessing, such confessions 
 are not to be submitted to a jury. 
 
 Who is Mr. Colmau ? He is an intelli- 
 gent, accurate, and cautious witness; a 
 gentleman of high and well-kuown char- 
 acter, and of unquestionable veracity; 
 as a clergyman, highly respectable; as 
 a man, of fair name and fame. 
 
 Why was Mr. Colman with the pris- 
 oner ? Joseph J. Knapp was his parish- 
 ioner; he was the head of a family, and 
 had been married by J\Ir. Colman. The 
 interests of that family were dear to him. 
 ' He felt for their afflictions, and was 
 anxious to alleviate their sufferings. He 
 went from the purest and best of mo- 
 tives to visit Joseph Knapp. He came 
 to save, not to destroy; to rescue, not 
 to take away life. In this family he 
 thought there might be a chance to save 
 one. It is a misconstruction of Mr. 
 Colman's motives, at once the most 
 strange and the most uncharitable, a 
 perversion of all just views of his con- 
 duct and intentions the most unaccount- 
 able, to represent him as acting, on this 
 occasion, in hostility to any one, or as 
 desirous of injuring or endangering any 
 one. He has stated his own motives, 
 and his own conduct, in a manner to 
 command universal belief and universal 
 respect. For intelligence, for consist- 
 ency, for accuracy, for caution, for can- 
 dor, never did witness acquit himself 
 better, or stand fairer. In all that he 
 dill as a man, and all he has said as a 
 witness, he has shown himself worthy of 
 entire regard. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, very important con- 
 fessions made by the prisoner are sworn 
 to by Air. Colman. They were made in 
 the prisoner's cell, where Mr. Colman 
 had gone with the prisoner's brother, 
 N. Phippen Knapp. Whatever conver- 
 sation took place was in the presence of 
 N P. Kn;'pp. New, on the part of the 
 
 prisoner, two things are asserted; first, 
 that such inducements were suggested to 
 the prisoner, in this interview, that no 
 confessions made by him ought to be 
 received; second, that, in point of fact, 
 he made no such confe.ssions as Mr. 
 Colman testifies to, nor, indeed, any 
 confessions at all. These two proposi- 
 tions are attempted to be supported by 
 the testimony of N. P. Knajip. These 
 two witnesses, Mr. Colman and N. P. 
 Knapp, differ entirely. There is no 
 possibility of reconciling them. No 
 charity can cover both. One or the 
 other has sworn falsely. If N. P. 
 Knapp be believed, Mr. Colman's testi- 
 mony must be wholly disregarded. It 
 is, then, a question of credit, a question 
 of belief between the two witnesses. 
 As you decide between these, so you 
 will decide on all this part of the case. 
 
 Mr. Colman has given you a plain 
 narrative, a consistent account, and has 
 nniformly stated the same things. He 
 is not contradicted, except by the testi- 
 mony of I'hippen Knapp. He is influ- 
 enced, as far as we can see, by no 
 bias, or prejudice, any more than other 
 men, except so far as his character is 
 now at stake. He has feelings on this 
 point, doubtless, and ought to have. If 
 what he has stated be not true, I cannot 
 see any ground for his escape. If he be 
 a true man, he must have heard what 
 he testifies. No treachery of meraoiy 
 brings to memory things that never took 
 place. There is no reconciling his evi- 
 dence with good intention, if the facta 
 in it are not as he states them. He is on 
 trial as to his veracity. 
 
 The relation in which the other wit- 
 ness stands deserves your careful consid- 
 eration. He is a member of the family 
 He has the lives of two brothers de- 
 pending, as he may think, on the effect 
 of his evidence; depending on every 
 word he speaks. I hope he has not an- 
 other responsibility resting upon him. 
 By the advice of a friend, and that 
 friend Mr. Colman, J. Knapp made a 
 full and free confession, and obtained a 
 promise of pardon. He has since, as 
 you know, probably by the advice of 
 other friends, retracted that confession. 
 
000 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 and rejected the offered pixrdon. Events 
 will show who of these friends and ad- 
 visers advised him best, and befriended 
 him most. In the mean time, if this 
 brother, the witness, be one of these 
 advisers, and advised the retraction, he 
 has. most emphatically, the lives of his 
 bi others restinjr upon his evidence and 
 upon his conduct. Compare the situa- 
 tion of these two witnesses. Do you 
 not see inic^hty motive enough on the 
 one side, and want of all motive on the 
 other? I would gladly find an apology 
 for that witness, in his agonized feel- 
 ings, in his distressed situation; in the 
 agitation of that hour, or of this. I 
 would gladly impute it to error, or to 
 want of recollection, to confusion of 
 mind, or disturbance of feeling. I 
 would gladly impute to any pardonable 
 source that which cannot be reconciled 
 to facts and to truth ; but, even in a ca.se 
 calling for .so much sympathy, justice 
 must yet prevail, and we must come tn 
 the conclusion, however reluctantly, 
 which that demands from us. 
 
 It is said, Phippen Knapp was prob- 
 ably correct, because he knew he should 
 probably be called as a witness. Wit- 
 ness to what? When he says there was 
 no confession, what could he expect to 
 bear witness of? Hut I do not put it on 
 the ground that he did not hear; I am 
 compelled to put it on the other ground, 
 that he did hear, and does not now truly 
 tell what he heard. 
 
 If Mr. Colman were out of the case, 
 there are other rea.sons why the story of 
 Phippen Knapp should not be believed. 
 It has in it inherent improbabilities. It 
 is unnatural, and inconsistent with the 
 accompanying circumstances. He tells 
 you that they went " to the cell of Frank, 
 to see if he had any objection to taking 
 a trial, and suffering his brother to 
 accept the offer of pardon"; in other 
 words, to obtain Frank's consent to Jo- 
 seph's making a confession; and in case 
 this consent was not obtained, that the 
 pardon would be offered to Frank. Did 
 they bandy about the chance of life, be- 
 tween the.^e two, in this way? Did Mr. 
 Colman. after having given this pledge 
 to Jo.seph, and after having received a 
 
 disclosure from Joseph, go to the cell of 
 Frank for such a purpose as this? It is 
 impossible; it cannot be so. 
 
 Again, we know that Mr. Colman 
 found the club the next day; that he 
 went directlj' to the place of deposit, 
 and found it at the first attempt, exactly 
 where he says he had been informed it 
 was. Now Phipjten Knapp says, that 
 Frank had stated nothing respecting the 
 club; that it was not mentioned in that 
 conversation. He says, also, that he 
 was present in the cell of Joseph all the 
 time that Mr. Colman was there; that 
 he believes he heard all that was said in 
 Joseph's cell; and that he did not him- 
 self know where the club was, and never 
 had known where it was, until he heard 
 it stated in court. Now it is certain 
 that yiv. Colman says he did not learn 
 the particular place of deposit of the 
 club from Joseph; that he only learned 
 from him that it was deposited under 
 the steps of the Howard Street meeting- 
 house, without defining the particular 
 steps. It is certain, also, that he had 
 more knowledge of the position of the 
 club than this; else how could he have 
 placed his hand on it so readily? and 
 where else could he have obtained this 
 knowledge, except from Frank? 
 
 Here Mr. De.xter said that Mr. Colman 
 liiul had other interviews with Joseph, and 
 niiy:Iit have derived the information from 
 liitn at previous visits. Mr. Wehster re- 
 plied, that Mr. Colman had testified that he 
 learned nothing in relation to the club until 
 ihis visit. Mr. Dexter denied there being 
 ;niy such testimony. Mr. Coinian's evi- 
 dence was read, from the notes of tlie judges, 
 and several other persons, and Mr. Webster 
 then proceeded. 
 
 My point is to show that Phippen 
 Knapp's story is not true, is not consist- 
 ent with itself; that, taking it for grant- 
 ed, as he says, that he heard all that was 
 said to Mr. Colman in both cells, by Jo- 
 seph and by Frank; and that Josejih did 
 not state particularly where the club was 
 deposited; and that he knew as much 
 about the place of deposit of the club as 
 Mr. Colman knew ; why, then Mr. Col- 
 man must either have been iniraculi)usly 
 informed respecting the club, or Phippeo 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 223 
 
 Knapp has not told you the whole truth. 
 There is no reconciling this, witliout 
 Bupposinj; that Mr. Cuhiiaii has misrep- 
 resented what took place in Joseph's cell, 
 as well as wliat took place in Frank's cell. 
 
 Again, Phippen Knapp is directly 
 contradicted by Mr. Wheatland. IMr. 
 Wheatland tells the same story, as com- 
 ing from Phippen Knapp, tliat Colman 
 now tells. Here there are two against 
 one. Phippen Knapp says that Frank 
 made no confessions, and tliat he said 
 he had none to make. In this he is con- 
 tradicted by Wheatland, lie, Phippen 
 Knapp, told Wheatland, that Mr. Col- 
 man did ask Frank some questions, and 
 that Frank answered them. lie told him 
 also what these answers were. Wheat- 
 land does not i-ecollect the questions or 
 answers, but recollects his reply; which 
 was, "Is not this premature f I think 
 this answer is sutHcient to make Frank 
 a principal." Here Phippen Knapp 
 opposes himself to Wlieatland, as well as 
 to Mr. Colman. Do you believe Phip- 
 pen Knapp against these two respectable 
 witnesses, or them against him? 
 
 Is not Mr. Colman's testimony credi- 
 ble, natural, and proper? To judge of 
 this, you must go back to that scene. 
 
 The murder had been committed; the 
 two Knapps were now arrested; four 
 persons were already in jail supposed to 
 be concerned in it, the Crown inshields, 
 and Selman, and Chase. Another per- 
 son at the Eastward was supposed to be 
 in the plot ; it was important to learn the 
 facts. To do this, some one of those 
 suspected nmst be admitted to turn 
 state's witne.ss. The contest was. Who 
 should have this privilege? It was un- 
 derstood that it was about to be offered 
 to Palmer, then in Maine; there was no 
 good reason why he should have the 
 preference. Mr. Colman felt interested 
 for the family of the Knapps, and par- 
 ticularly for Joseph. He was a young 
 man who had hitherto maintained a fair 
 standing in society; he was a husband. 
 Mr. Colman was particularly intimate 
 with his family. With these views he 
 went to the prison. He believed that 
 he might safely converse with the pris- 
 oner, because he thought confessions 
 
 made to a clergyman were sacred, and 
 tliat he could not be called njxjn to di.s- 
 clo.se them. He went, the hist time, in 
 the morning, and was requested to come 
 again. He went again at three o'clock; 
 and was requested to call again at five 
 o'clock. In the mean time he .saw the 
 father and Phippen, and they wished he 
 would not go again, because it would be 
 said the prisoners were making confes- 
 sion. He said he had engaged to go 
 again at five o'clock; but would not, if 
 Phippen would excuse him to Joseph. 
 Phippen engaged to do this, and to meet 
 him at his office at five o'clock. Mr. 
 Colman went to the office at the time, 
 and waited; but, as Phippen was not 
 there, he walked down street, and saw 
 him coming from the jail. He met 
 him, and while in conversation near the 
 chuFch, he saw Mrs. Beckford and Mrs. 
 Knapp going in a chaise towards the 
 jail, lie hastened to meet them, as he 
 thought it not proper for them to go in 
 at that time. While conversing with 
 them near the jail, he received twc 
 distinct messages from Joseph, that he 
 wished to see him. He thought it proper 
 to go; and accordingly went to Joseph's 
 cell, and it was while there that the dis- 
 closures were made. Before Joseph had 
 finished his statement, Phippen came to 
 the door; he was soon after admitted. 
 A short interval ensued, and they went 
 together to the cell of Frank. Mr. Col- 
 man went in by invitation of Phippen; 
 he had come directly from the cell of 
 Jo.seph, where he had for the fiist time 
 learned the incidents of the tragedy. 
 He was incredulous as to some of the 
 facts which he had learned, they were 
 so different from his previous impres- 
 sions. He was desirous of knowing 
 whether he could place confidence in 
 what Joseph had told liim. He. there- 
 fore, put the questions to Frank, as lie 
 has te.stified before you; in answer to 
 which Frank Knapp informed him, — 
 
 1. "That the murder took place be- 
 tween ten and eleven o'clock." 
 
 2. " That Richard Crowniushield was 
 alone in the house." 
 
 3. " That he, Frank Knapp, weni 
 home afterwards." 
 
224 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 4. " That the club was deposited 
 under the steps of the Howard Street 
 meeting-house, and under the part near- 
 est the burying-ground, in a rat hole." 
 
 5. " That the dagger or daggers had 
 been worked up at the factoi-y." 
 
 It is said that these five answers just 
 fit tlie case; that they are jiLst what 
 was wanted, and neither more nor less. 
 True, they are; but the reason is, be- 
 cause truth always fits. Truth is always 
 congruous, and agrees with itself: every 
 truth in the universe agrees with every 
 other truth in the universe, whereas 
 falsehoods not only disagree with truths, 
 but usually quarrel among themselves. 
 Surely Mr. Colraan is influenced by no 
 bia.s, no prejudice; he has no feelings to 
 warp him, except, now that he is con- 
 tradicted, he may feel an interest to be 
 believed. 
 
 If you believe Mr. Colman, then the 
 evidence is fairly in the case. 
 
 I shall now proceed on the ground 
 that you do believe Mr. Colman. 
 
 When told that Joseph had deter- 
 mined to confess, the defendant said, '' It 
 is hard, or unfair, that Joseph should 
 have the benefit of confessing, since tiie 
 thing was done for his benefit." What 
 thing was done for his benefit? Does 
 not this carry an implication of the guilt 
 of the defendant? Does it not show 
 that he had a knowledge of the object 
 and history of the murder? 
 
 The defendant said, " I told Joseph, 
 when he proposed it, that it was a silly 
 business, and would get us into trouble." 
 He knew, then, what this business was; 
 he knew that Joseph proposed it, and 
 that he agreed to it, else he could not 
 get us into trouble; he understood its 
 bearing and its consequences. Thus 
 much was said, under circumstances 
 that make it clearly evidence against 
 him, before there is any pretence of an 
 inducement held out. And does not 
 this prove him to have had a knowledge 
 of the conspiracy? 
 
 He knew the daggers had been de- 
 stroyed, and he knew who committed 
 the murder. How could he have inno- 
 cently known these facts? Why, if by 
 Richard's story, tliis shows him guilty 
 
 of a knowledge of the murder, and of 
 the conspiracy. More than all, he knew 
 when the deed was done, and that he 
 went home afterwards. This shows his 
 participation in that deed. " Went home 
 afterwards "! Home, from what scene? 
 home, from what fact? home, from what 
 transaction? home, from what place? 
 This confirms the supposition that the 
 prisoner was in Brown Street for the 
 purposes ascribed to him. These ques- 
 tions were directly put, and directly 
 answered. He does not intimate that 
 he received the information from an- 
 other. Now, if he knows the time, and 
 went home afterwards, and does not ex- 
 cuse hifnself, is not this an admission 
 that he had a hand in this murder? 
 Already proved to be a conspirator in 
 the murder, he now confesses that he 
 knew who did it, at what time it was 
 done, that he was liimself out of his own 
 house at the time, and went home after- 
 wards. Is not this conclusive, if not 
 explained? Then comes the club. He 
 told where it was. This is like posses- 
 sion of stolen goods. He is charged 
 with the guilty knowledge of this con- 
 cealment. He must show, not say, how 
 he came by this knowledge. If a man 
 be found with stolen goods, he must 
 prove how he came by them. The place 
 of deposit of the club was premedi- 
 tated and selected, and he knew where 
 it was. 
 
 Joseph Knapp was an accessory, and 
 an accessory only ; he knew only what 
 was told him. But the prisoner knew 
 the particular spot in which the club 
 might be found. This shows his knowl- 
 edge .something more than that of an 
 accessory. This presumption must be 
 rebutted by evidence, or it stands strong 
 against him. He has too much knowl- 
 edge of this transaction to have come 
 innocently by it. It must stand against 
 him until he explains it. 
 
 This testimony of Mr. Colman is rep- 
 resented as new matter, and therefore 
 an attempt has been made to excite a 
 prejudice against it. It is not so. How 
 little is there in it, after all, that did 
 not appear from other sources? It is 
 mainly confirmatory. Compare what 
 
THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 225 
 
 you learn from this confession with what 
 you before knew. 
 
 As to its beinc: proposed by Joseph, was 
 not that known? 
 
 As to Richard's being alone in the 
 house, was not that known? 
 
 As to the daggers, was not that 
 known? 
 
 As to the time of the murder, was 
 
 DOt that known? 
 
 As to his being out that night, was 
 not that known? 
 
 As to his returning afterwards, was 
 n')t that known? 
 
 As to the club, was not that known? 
 
 So tins information confirms what 
 was known before, and fully confirms 
 it. 
 
 One word as to the interview between 
 Mr. Colman and Phippen Knapp on the 
 turnpike. It is said that Mr. Colman's 
 conduct in this matter is inconsistent with 
 his testimony. Tiiere does not appear 
 to me to be any inconsistency. He tells 
 you that his object was to save Joseph, 
 and to hurt no one, and least of all the 
 prisoner at the bar. He had probably 
 told ^Ir. White the substance of what 
 he heard at the prison. He had 
 probably told him that Frank confirmed 
 what Joseph had confessed. He was 
 unwilling to be the instrument of harm 
 to Frank. He therefore, at the request 
 of Phippen Knapp, WTote a note to ]\Ir. 
 White, requesting him to consider Jo- 
 seph as authority for the information he 
 had received. He tells you that this is 
 the only thing he has to regret, as it 
 may seem to be an evasion, as he doubts 
 whether it was entirely correct. If it 
 was an evasion, if it was a deviation, if 
 it was an error, it was an error of mercy, 
 an error of kindness, — an error that 
 proves he had no hostility to the pris- 
 oner at the bar. It does not in the 
 least vary his testimony, or affect its 
 correctness. Gentlemen, I look on the 
 evidence of Mr. Colman as highly im- 
 portant; not as bringing into the cause 
 new facts, but as confirming, in a very 
 satisfactory manner, other evidence. It 
 is incredible that he can be false, and 
 that he is seeking the prisoner's life 
 through false swearing. If he is true. 
 
 it is incredible that the prisoner can be 
 innocent. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have gone through with 
 the evidence in this case, and have en- 
 deavored to state it plainly and fairly 
 before you. I think tlieie are conclu- 
 sions to be drawn from it, the accuracy 
 of which you cannot doubt. I think 
 you cannot doubt that there was a 
 conspiracy formed for the purpose of 
 committing this murder, and who the 
 conspirators were: 
 
 That you cannot doubt that the 
 Crowninshields and the Knapps were 
 the parties in this conspiracy: 
 
 That you cannot doubt that the pris- 
 oner at the bar knew that the murder 
 was to be done on the night of the Gth 
 of April: 
 
 That you cannot doubt that the mur- 
 derers of Captain White were the suspi- 
 cious persons seen in and about Brown; 
 Street on that night: 
 ' That you cannot doubt that Richard. 
 Crowninshield was the perpetrator of 
 that crime: 
 
 That you cannot doubt that the pris- 
 oner at the bar was in Brown Street on< 
 that night. 
 
 If there, then it must be by agree- 
 ment, to countenance, to aid the pei-pe- 
 trator. And if so, then he is guilty as 
 Pkinxipal. 
 
 Gentlemen, your whole concern shouldi 
 be to do your duty, atid leave consequen- 
 ces to take care of themselves. You. 
 will receive the law from the court. 
 Your verdict, it is true, may endanger 
 the prisoner's life, but then it is tO' 
 save other lives. It the prisoner's guilt 
 has been shown and proved beyond all 
 reasonable doubt, you will convict him. 
 If such reasonable doubts of guilt still 
 remain, you will acquit him. You are 
 the judges of the whole case. You owe 
 a duty to the public, as well as to the j^ris- 
 oner at the bar. You cannot presume 
 to be wiser than the law. Y'onr <luty 
 is a plain, straightforward one. I)oul>t- 
 less we would all judge him in mercy. 
 Towards him, as an individual, the law 
 inculcates no hostility; but towards liim, 
 if proved to be a murderer, the law, and 
 
 lo 
 
226 
 
 THE MURDER OF CAPTAIN JOSEPH WHITE. 
 
 the oaths you have taken, and public 
 justice, demand that you do your duty. 
 
 With consciences satisfied ■with the 
 discharge of duty, no consequences can 
 harm you. There is no evil that we 
 cannot either face or fly from, but the 
 consciousness of duty disregarded. A 
 sense of duty pursues us ever. It is om- 
 nipresent, like the Deity. If we take to 
 ourselves the wings of the morning, and 
 dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 
 duty performed, or duty violated, is still 
 irith us, for our happiness or our mis- 
 
 ery. If we say the darkness shall cover 
 us. in the darkness as in the light our 
 obligations are yet with us. We can- 
 not escape their power, nor fly from their 
 presence. They are with us in this life, 
 will be with us at its close; and in that 
 scene of inconceivable solemnity, whii'h 
 lies yet farther onward, we shall still 
 find ourselves surrounded by the con- 
 sciousness of duty, to pain us wherever 
 it has been violated, and to console u.s 
 so far as God may have given us grace 
 to perform it. 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 SECOND SPEECH ON "FOOT'S RESOLUTION," DELIVERED IN- THE SENATE OF 
 THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 26th AND 27th OF JANUARY, 1830. 
 
 [Mr. "Webster having completed on Jan- 
 uary 20th his first speech on Foot's resolu- 
 tion, Mr. Benton spoke in reply, on the 
 20th and 21st of January, 1830. Mr. Hayne 
 of South Carolina followed on the same 
 side, but, after some time, gave way for a 
 motion for adjournment. On Monday, the 
 25th, Mr. Hayne resumed, and concluded 
 his argument. Mr. Webster immediately 
 rose in reply, but yielded the floor for a 
 motion for adjournment. 
 
 The next day (26th January, 1830) Mr. 
 Webster took the floor and delivered the 
 following speech, which has given such 
 great celebrity to the debate. The circum- 
 stances connected with this remarkable ef- 
 fort of parliamentary eloquence are vividly 
 set forth in Mr. Everett's Memoir, prefixed to 
 the first volume of Mr. Webster's Works.] 
 
 Mr. President, — When the mari- 
 ner has been tossed for many days in 
 thick weatiier, and on an unknown sea, 
 he naturally avails himself of the first 
 pause in the storm, the earliest glance 
 of the sun, to take his latitude, and as- 
 certain how far the elements have driven 
 him from his true course. Let us imi- 
 tate this prudence, and, before we float 
 farther on the waves of this debate, refer 
 to the point from which we departed, 
 that we may at least be able to conjecture 
 where we now are. I ask for the reading 
 of the resolution before the Senate. 
 
 The Secretary read the resolution, as 
 follows : — 
 
 "Rrsolved, That the Committee on Public 
 Lands be instructed to inquire and report 
 the quantity of public lands remaining un- 
 sold within each State and Territory, and 
 whether it be expedient to limit for a cer- 
 tain period the sales of the public lands to 
 
 such lands only as have heretofore been 
 offered for sale, and are now subject to 
 entry at the minimum price. And, also, 
 whether the office of Surveyor-General, and 
 some of the land offices, may not be abol- 
 ished without detriment to the public inter- 
 est ; or whether it be expedient to adopt 
 measures to hasten the sales and extend 
 more rapidly the surveys of the public 
 lands." 
 
 We have thus heard, Sir, -what the 
 resolution is which is actually before us 
 for consideration; and it will readily 
 occur to every one, that it is almost the 
 only subject about which something haa 
 not been said in the speech, running 
 through two days, by which the Senate 
 has been entertained by the gentleman 
 from South Carolina. Every topic in 
 the wide range of our public affairs, 
 whether past or present, — every thing, 
 general or local, whether belonging to 
 national politics or party politics, — 
 seems to have attracted more or less of 
 the honorable member's attention, save 
 only the resolution before the Senate. 
 He has spoken of every thing but the 
 public lands ; they have escaped his no- 
 tice. To that subject, in all his excur- 
 sions, he has not paid even the cold 
 respect of a passing glance. 
 
 When this debate, Sir, was tD be re- 
 sumed, on Thursday morning, it so 
 happened that it would have been con- 
 venient for me to be elsewhere. The 
 honorable member, however, did not 
 incline to put off the discussion to an- 
 other day. He had a shot, he said, to 
 return, and he wished to discharge it. 
 
228 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 That shot, Sir, which he thus kindly in- 
 formed us was coming, that we might 
 stand out of the way, or prepare our- 
 selves tc fall by it and die with decency, 
 lias now been received. Under all ad- 
 vantages, and with expectation awa- 
 kened by the tone which preceded it, it 
 has been discharged, and has spent ita 
 force. It may become me to say no 
 uioic of its effect, than that, if nobo<ly 
 is found, after all, either killed or 
 wounded, it is not the first time, in the 
 histoiy ol human aiTairs, that the vigor 
 and succe-ss of the war have not quite 
 come up to the lofty and sounding phrase 
 of the manifesto. 
 
 The gentleman. Sir, in declining to 
 postpone the debate, told the Senate, 
 with the emphasis of his hand upon his 
 heart, that there was something ran- 
 kling here, which he wished to relieve. 
 [Mr. Hayne rose, and disclaimed having 
 used the word rankling.] It would not, 
 Mr. President, be safe for the honorable 
 member to appeal to those around him, 
 upon the question whether he did in 
 fact make use of that word. But he 
 may have been unconscious of it. At 
 any rate, it is enough that he disclaims 
 it. But still, with or without the use 
 of that particular word, he had yet 
 something here, he said, of which he 
 Avished to rid himself by an immediate 
 reply. In this respect. Sir, I have a 
 great advantage over the honorable gen- 
 tlfman. There is nothing here, Sir, 
 which gives me the slightest uneasiness; 
 neither fear, nor anger, nor that which 
 is sometimes more troublesome than 
 either, the consciousness of having been 
 in the wrong. There is nothing, either 
 originating here, or now received here 
 by the gentleman's shot. Xothing origi- 
 nating here, for I had not the slightest 
 feeling of unkindness towards the hon- 
 orable member. Some passages, it is 
 true, had occurred since our acquaint- 
 ance in this body, which I could have 
 wished might have been otherwise; but 
 I had used philosophy and forgotten 
 them. I paid the honorable member 
 the attention of listening with respect to 
 his first spet-ch; and when he sat down, 
 though surprised, and I luust even say 
 
 astonished, at some of his o]">inions, 
 nothing was farther from my intention 
 than to commence any personal warfare. 
 Through the whole of the few remarks 
 I made in answer, I avoided, studiously 
 and carefully, every thing which I 
 thought possible to be construed into 
 disrespect. And, Sir, while there is 
 thus nothing origin.iting here which I 
 have wished at any time, or now wi4i, 
 to discharge, I must repeat, also, lli;it 
 nothing has been received here which 
 rankles, or in any way gives me annoy- 
 ance. I will not accuse the honorable 
 member of violating the rules of civilized 
 war; I will not say, that he poi.son<ed his 
 aiTows. But whetlier his shafts were, 
 or were not, dipped in that which would 
 have caused rankling if they had reached 
 their destination, there was not, as it 
 happened, quite strength enough in the 
 bow to bring them to their mark. If 
 he wishes now to gather up those shafts, 
 he must look for them eLsewhere; they 
 will not be found fixed and quivering in 
 the object at which they were aimed. 
 
 The honorable member complained 
 that I had slept on his speech. I must 
 have slept on it, or not slept at all. The 
 moment the honorable member sat down, 
 his friend from Missouri rose, and, with 
 much honeyed conunendation of the 
 speech, suggested that the impressions 
 which it had produced were too charm- 
 ing and delightful to be disturbed by 
 other sentiments or other sounds, and 
 proposed that the Senate should adjourn. 
 Would it have been quite amiable in 
 me, Sir, to interrupt this excellent good 
 feeling? Must I not have been abso- 
 lutely malicious, if I could have thrust 
 myself forward, to destroy sensations 
 thus pleasing ? Was it not much better 
 and kinder, both to sleep ujwn them 
 myself, and to allow others also the 
 pleasure of sleeping upon them? But 
 if it be meant, by sleeping upon his 
 speech, that I took time to prepare a 
 reply to it, it is quite a mistake. Ow- 
 ing to other engagements, I could not 
 employ even the interval between the 
 adjournment of the Senate and its meet- 
 ing the next morning, in attention to 
 the subject of this debate. Neverthe- 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE 
 
 229 
 
 less, Sir, the mere matter of fact is 
 undoubtedly true. 1 did sleep on the 
 geutleinan's speech, and slept soundly. 
 And 1 slept ec^ually well on his speech 
 of yesterday, to which I am now reply- 
 ing. It is quite possible that in this 
 respect, also, I pos.sess some advantage 
 over the honorable member, attributa- 
 ble, doubtless, to a cooler temperament 
 on my part; for, in truth, I slept upon 
 his speeches remarkably well. 
 
 But the gentleman inquires why he 
 was made the object of such a reply. 
 "Why was he singled out V If an attack 
 has been made on the East, he, he as- 
 sures us, did not begin it; it was made 
 by the gentleman from Missouri. Sir, 
 1 answered the gentleman's speech be- 
 cause 1 happened to hear it; and because, 
 also, I cliose to give an answer to that 
 speech, which, if unanswered,! thought 
 most likely to produce injurious impres- 
 sions. I did not stop to iucjuire who 
 was the original drawer of the bill. 1 
 found a responsible indorser before me, 
 and it was my purpose to hold hiiu lia- 
 ble, and to bring him to his just respon- 
 sibility, without delay. But, Sir, this 
 interrogatory of the honoiable member 
 was only introductory to another. He 
 proceeded to ask me whether I had 
 turned upon him, in this debate, from 
 the consciousness that I should find an 
 overmatch, if I ventured on a contest 
 with his friend from Missouri. If, Sir, 
 the honorable member, modestioe gratia, 
 had chosen thi^ to defer to his friend, 
 and to pay him a compliment, without 
 intentional disparagement to others, it 
 would have been quite according to the 
 friendly courtesies of debate, and not at 
 all ungrateful to my own feelings. I 
 am not one of those, Sir. who esteem 
 any tribute of regard, whether liglit and 
 occasional, or more serious and delib- 
 erate, which may be bestowed on others, 
 as so much unjustly withholden from 
 themselves. But the tone and manner 
 of the gentleman's question forbid me 
 thus to interpret it. 1 am not at liberty 
 to consider it as nothing more than a 
 civility to his friend. It had an air 
 of taunt and disparagement, something 
 of the loftiness of asserted superiority, 
 
 which does not allow me to pass it over 
 without notice. It was put as a ques- 
 tion for me to answer, and so put aa 
 if it were difficult for me to answer, 
 whether I deemed the member from 
 Missouri an overmatch for myself in 
 debate here. It seems to me. Sir, that 
 this is extraordinary language, and an 
 extraordinary tone, for the discussions 
 of this body. 
 
 Matches and overmatches ! Those 
 terms are more applicable elsewhere 
 than here, and fitter for other assem- 
 blies than this. Sir, the gentlemau 
 seems to forget where and what we are. 
 This is a Senate, a Senate of equals, of 
 men of individual honor and personal 
 character, and of absolute independence. 
 We know no masters, we acknowledge / i I 
 no dLctators. This is a hall for mutual ' 
 consultation and discussion ; not an are- ; 
 na for the exhibition of champions. I l 
 offer myself. Sir, as a match for no man ; 1 
 I throw the challenge of debate at no ^ 
 man's feet. But then. Sir, since the 
 honorable member has put the question 
 in a manner that calls for an answer, I 
 will give him an answer; and I tell him, 
 that, holding myself to be the humblest 
 of the members here, I yet know noth- 
 ing in the arm of his friend from Mis- 
 souri, either alone or when aided by the 
 arm of his friend from South Carolina, 
 that need deter even me from espousing 
 whatever opinions I may choose to es- 
 pouse, from debating whenever I may 
 choose to debate, or from speaking what- 
 ever I may see fit to say, on the floor of 
 the Senate. Sir, when uttered as mat- 
 ter of commendation or compliment, I 
 should dissent from nothing which the 
 honorable member might say of his 
 friend. Still less do I put forth any 
 pretensions of my own. But when put 
 to me as matter of taunt, I tin-ow it 
 back, and say to the gentleman, that lie 
 could possibly say nothing less likely 
 than such a comparison to wound my 
 pride of personal character. The anger 
 of its tone rescued the remark from 
 intentional irony, which otherwise, prob- 
 ably, would have been its general accep- 
 tation. But, Sir, if it be imagined that 
 by this mutual quotation and commeu- 
 
230 
 
 THE REPLY TO IL\YXE. 
 
 dation; if it be supposed that, by cast- 
 ins the characters of the drama, assign- 
 iug to each his part, to one the attack, 
 to another the cry of ons^t; or if it be 
 thought that, by a loud and empty vaunt 
 of anticipated victory, any laurels are to 
 be won here; if it be imagined, espe- 
 cially, that any or all these things will 
 shak; any purpose of mine, — I can tell 
 the honorable member, once for all, that 
 he is greatly mistaken, and that he is 
 dealing with one of whose temper and 
 character he has yet much to learn. 
 Sir, I shall not allow myself, on this 
 occasion, I hope on no occasion, to be 
 betrayed into any loss of temper; but if 
 provoked, as I trust I never shall be, into 
 crimination and recrimination, the hon- 
 orable member may perhaps find, that, 
 in that contest, there will be blows to 
 take as well as blows to give ; that others 
 can state comparisons as significant, at 
 least, as his own, and that liis impunity 
 may possibly demand of him whatever 
 powers of taunt and sarcasm he may 
 possess. I commend him to a prudent 
 husbandry of his resources. 
 
 But, Sir, the Coalition! The Coali- 
 tion! Ay, "the murdered Coalition!" 
 The gentleman asks, if I were led or 
 flighted into this debate by the spectre 
 of the Coalition. " Was it the ghost of 
 the murdered Coalition," he exclaims, 
 "which haunted the member from ^las- 
 gachusetts; and which, like the ghost of 
 Banquo, would never down?" "The 
 murdered Coalition!" Sir, this charge 
 of a coalition, in reference to the late 
 administration, is not original with the 
 honorable member. It did not spring 
 up in the Senate. Whether as a fact, 
 as an argument, or as an embellishment, 
 it is all borrowed. He adopts it, in- 
 deed, from a very low origin, and a still 
 lowei preseni condition. It is one of 
 ilie thousand calunmies with which the 
 press teemed, during an excited political 
 canvass. It was a charge, of which 
 thei-e was not oidy no proof or proba- 
 bility, but which was in itself wholly 
 impossible to be true. No man of com- 
 mon information ever believed a syllable 
 of it. Yet it was of that class of false- 
 hoods, which, by continued repetition, 
 
 through all the organs of detraction and 
 abuse, are capable of misleading those 
 who are already far misled, and of fur- 
 ther fanning passion already kindling 
 into flame. Doubtless it served in its 
 day, and in greater or less degree, the 
 end designed by it. Having done that, 
 it has sunk into the general mass of 
 stale and loathed calumnies. It is the 
 very cast-off slough of a polluted and 
 shameless press. Incapable of further 
 mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless 
 and despisf'd. It is not now. Sir, in the 
 power of the honorable member to give 
 it dignity or decency, by attempting to 
 elevate it, and to introduce it into the 
 Senate. lie cannot change it from what 
 it is, an object of general disgust and 
 scorn. On the contrary, the contact, if 
 he choose to touch it, is more likely to 
 drag him down, down, to the place 
 where it lies itself. 
 
 But, Sir, the honorable member was 
 not, for other reasons, entirely happy in 
 his allusion to the story of Banquo's 
 murder and Banquo's ghost. It was 
 not, I think, the friends, but the ene- 
 mies of the murdered Banquo, at whose 
 bidding liis spirit would not down. The 
 honorable gentleman is fresh in his read- 
 ing of the English classics, and can put 
 me right if I am wrong ; but, according 
 to my poor recollection, it was at those 
 who had begun with caresses and ended 
 with foul and treacherous nmrder that 
 the gory locks were shaken. The ghost 
 of Bancjuo, like that of Hamlet, was an 
 honest ghost. It disturbed no innocent 
 man. It knew where its appearance 
 would strike terror, and who would cry 
 out, A ghost! It made itself visible iu 
 the right quarter, and compelled the 
 o-uiltv and the conscitnice-smitten, and 
 none others, to start, witli, 
 
 "Pr'ythee, see there! behold I — look! lo, 
 It' I stand here, I saw him! " 
 
 Their eyeballs were seared (was it not 
 so, Sir?) who had thoiight to shield 
 themselves by concealing tlieir own 
 han<l, and laying the imputation of the 
 crime on a low and hireling agency iu 
 wickedness ; who had vainly attempted 
 to stifle the workings of their own cuw- 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 231 
 
 ard consciences by ejaculating through 
 white lips and chattering teeth, " Thou 
 canst not say 1 did it! " I have misread 
 the great poet if those who had no way 
 partaken in the deed of the death, either 
 found that they were, or feared that then 
 should be, pushed from their stools by 
 the ghost of the slain, or exclaimed to a 
 spectre created by their own fears and 
 their owa remorse, "Avaunt! and quit 
 our sight! " 
 
 There is another particular, Sir, in 
 whicli the honorable member's quick 
 perception of resemblances might, I 
 should think, have seen something in 
 the story of Banquo, making it not alto- 
 gether a subject of the most pleasant 
 contemplation. Those who murdered 
 Banquo, what did they win by it? Sub- 
 stantial good? Permanent power? Or 
 disappointment, rather, and sore morti- 
 fication, — dust and ashes, the common 
 fate of vaulting ambition overleaping 
 itself? Did not even-handed justice ere- 
 long commend the poisoned chalice to 
 their own lips? Did they not soon find 
 that for another they had " filed their 
 mind"? that their ambition, though 
 apparently for the moment successful, 
 had but put a barren sceptre in their 
 grasp? Ay, Sir, 
 
 " a barren sceptre in their gripe, 
 Thence to be loi-enchtd with an unlineal hand, 
 No son of theirs succeeding." 
 
 Sir, I need pursue the allusion no 
 farther. I leave the honorable gentle- 
 man to run it out at his leisure, and to 
 derive from it all the gratification it is 
 calculated to administer. If he finds 
 himself pleased with the associations, 
 and prepared to be quite satisfied, 
 though the parallel should be entirely 
 completed, I had almost said, I am sat- 
 isfied also; but that I shall think of. 
 Yes, Sir, I will think of that. 
 
 In the course of my observations the 
 other day, Mr. President, I paid a pass- 
 ing tribute of respect to a very wortliy 
 man, Mr. Dane of ]Ma.ssachusetts. It 
 so happened that he drew the Ordinance 
 of 1787, for the government of the 
 Northwestern Territory. A man of so 
 much ability, and so little pretence ; of 
 
 so great a capacity to do good, and so 
 unmixed a disposition to do it for its 
 own sake ; a gentleman who had acted 
 an important part, forty years ago, in a 
 measure the influence of whicli is still 
 deeply felt in the very matter which was 
 the subject of debate, — might, I thought, 
 receive from me a commendatory recog- 
 nition. But the honorable member was 
 inclined to be facetious on the subject. 
 lie was rather disposed to make it mat- 
 ter of ridicule, that I had introduced 
 into the debate the name of one Nathan 
 Dane, of whom he assures us he had 
 never before heard. Sir, if the honor- 
 able member had never before heard of 
 Mr. Dane, I am sorry for it. It shows 
 him less acquainted with the public men 
 of the country than I had supposed. 
 Let me tell him, however, that a sneer 
 from him at the mention of the name 
 of Mr. Dane is in bad taste. It may 
 well be a high mark of ambition, Sir, 
 either with the honorable gentleman or 
 myself, to accomplish as much to make 
 our names known to advantage, and re- 
 membered with gi-atitude, as ^Ir. Dane 
 has accomplished. But the truth is, 
 Sir, I suspect, that ]\Ir. Dane lives a 
 little too far north. He is of Massachu- 
 setts, and too near the north star to be 
 reached by the honorable gentleman's 
 telescope. If his sphere had happened 
 to range south of Mason and Dixon 'a 
 line, he might, probably, have come 
 within the scope of his vision. 
 
 I spoke. Sir, of the Ordinance of 
 1787, which prohibits slavery, in \\\ 
 futui-e times, northwest of the Ohio, as 
 a measure of great wisdom and fore- 
 sight, and one which had been attended 
 with highly beneficial and permanent 
 consequences. I supposed that, on this 
 point, no two gentlemen in the Senate 
 could entertain different opinions. But 
 the simple exjiression of this sentimei.t 
 has led the gentleman, not only into a 
 labored defence of slaveiy, in the ab- 
 stract, and on principle, but also into a 
 warm accusation against me, as having 
 attacked the system of domestic slavery 
 now existing in the Southern States. 
 For all this, there was not the slightest 
 foundation, in any thing said or Luti- 
 
232 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 mate<l by me. I did not utter a single 
 ■word whicli any ingenuity could torture 
 into an attack on the slavery of the 
 South. I said, only, that it was highly 
 wise and useful, in legislating for the 
 Northwestern country while it was yet 
 a wilderness, to prohibit the introduc- 
 tion of slaves; and I added, that I pre- 
 sumed there was no reflecting and intel- 
 ligent person, in the neighboring State 
 of Kentucky, who would doubt that, if 
 the same prohibition had been extended, 
 at the same early period, over that com- 
 monwealth, her strength and population 
 would, at this day, have been far gi-eater 
 than they are. If these opinions be 
 thought doubtful, they are nevertheless, 
 I trust, neither extraordinary nor dis- 
 respectful. They attack nobody and 
 menace nobody. And yet, Sir, the gen- 
 tleman's optics have discovered, even in 
 the mere expression of this sentiment, 
 what he calls the very spirit of the ^lis- 
 souri question! lie represents me as 
 making an onset on the whole South, 
 and manifesting a spirit which would 
 interfere with, and disturb, their domes- 
 tic condition ! 
 
 Sir, this injustice no otherwise sur- 
 prises me, than as it is committed here, 
 and committed without the slightest pre- 
 tence of ground for it. I say it only 
 surprises me as being done here; for I 
 know full well, that it is, and has been, 
 the settled policy of some persons in the 
 South, for years, to represent the people 
 of the North as disposed to interfere 
 with them in their own exclusive and 
 peculiar concerns. This is a delicate 
 and sensitive ]>oint in Southern feeling; 
 antl of late years it has always been 
 touched, and generally with effect, 
 whenever the object has been to unite 
 the whole South against Northern men 
 or Northern measures. This feeling, 
 always carefully kept alive, and main- 
 tained at too intense a heat to admit 
 discrimination or reflection, is a lever of 
 great power in our })olitical machine. 
 It moves vast bodies, and gives to thoni 
 one and the same direction. But it is 
 without adequate cause, and the suspi- 
 cion which exists is wholly groundless. 
 There is not, and never has been, a dis- 
 
 position in the Xorth to interfere m ith 
 these interests of the South. Such in- 
 terference has never been supposed to 
 be within the power of government; nor 
 has it been iu any way attempted. The 
 slavery of the South has always been 
 regarded as a matter of domestic policy, 
 left with the States themselves, and with 
 w hich the Federal government had noth- 
 ing to do. Certainly, Sir, I am, and evei 
 have been, of that opinion. The gen- 
 tleman, indeed, argues that slaveiy, in 
 the abstract, is no evil. Most assuredly 
 I need not say I differ with him, alto- 
 gether and most widely, on that point. 
 I regard domestic slavery as one of the 
 greatest evils, both moral and political. 
 But whether it be a malady, and w hether 
 it be curable, and if so, by what means; 
 or, on the other hand, whether it be the 
 vulnus immedicahile of the social system, 
 I leave it to those whose right and duty 
 it is to inquire and to decide. And this 
 I believe, Sir, is, and uniformly has 
 been, the sentiment of the North. Let 
 us look a little at the history of this 
 matter. 
 
 When the present Constitution was 
 submitted for the ratification of the peo- 
 ple, there were those who imagined that 
 the powers of the government which it 
 proposed to establish might, in some 
 possible mode, be exerted in measures 
 tendinir to the abolition of sLiverv. This 
 suffiiestion would of course attract much 
 attention in the Southern conventions. 
 In that of Virginia, Governor Randolph 
 said: — 
 
 " I hope there is none here, who, con- 
 sidering tlie subject in the cahn light of 
 philosophy, will nuike an objection dis- 
 honorable to Virginia; that, at the mo- 
 ment they are securing the rights of 
 their citizens, an objection is started, 
 that there is a spark of hope that those 
 unfortunate men now held in bondage 
 may, by the oi>eration of the general 
 government, be made free." 
 
 At the very first Congress, petitions 
 on the subject were ]ireseuted, if 1 mis- 
 take not, from ditYeient States. The 
 Pennsylvania society for promoting the 
 abolition of slavery took a lead, and laid 
 before Congress a memorial, praying 
 
THE REPLY TO HA'i'NE. 
 
 233 
 
 Congress to promote tlie abolition by 
 8uch powers as it possessed. This me- 
 morial was referred, in the House of 
 Representatives, to a select committee, 
 consisting of Mr. Foster of New Hamp- 
 shire, Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts, Mr. 
 Huntington of Connecticut, Mr. Law- 
 rence of Xew York, Mr. isinnickson of 
 New Jersey, Mr. Hartley of Pennsylva- 
 nia, and Mr. Parker of Virginia, — all 
 oi them. Sir, as you will observe, North- 
 ei n men but the last. This committee 
 made a rejiort, which was referred to a 
 committee of the whole House, and 
 there considered and discussed for sev- 
 eral days; and being amended, although 
 without material alteration, it was made 
 to express three distinct propositions, 
 on the subject of slavery and the slave- 
 trade. First, in the words of the Con- 
 stitution, that Congress could not, prior 
 to the year 1SU8, prohibit the migration 
 or impoilation of such persons as any 
 of the States then existing should think 
 proper to admit ; and, secondly, that 
 Congress had authority to restrain the 
 citizens of the Laiited States from car- 
 rying on the African slave-trade, for the 
 purpose of supplying foreign comitries. 
 On this proposition, our early laws 
 against those who engage in that traffic 
 are founded. The third proposition, and 
 that which bears on the present ques- 
 tion, was expressed in the following 
 terms : — 
 
 '' Resoh-ed, That Congress have no 
 authority to interfere in the emancipa- 
 tion of slaves, or in the treatment of 
 them in any of the States; it remaining 
 with the several States alone to provide 
 rules and regulations therein which hu- 
 manity and true policy may require." 
 
 This resolution received the sanction 
 of the House of Representatives so early 
 as March, 1790. And now. Sir, the 
 honorable member will allow me to re- 
 mind him, that not only were the select 
 conmiittee who reported the resolution, 
 with a single exception, all Northern 
 men, but also that, of the members then 
 composing the House of Representa- 
 tives, a large majority, I believe nearly 
 two thirds, were Northern men also. 
 
 The J louse agreed to insert these reso- 
 
 lutions in its journal ; and from that day 
 to this it has never been maintained or 
 contended at the North, tliat Congress 
 had any authority to regulate or inter- 
 fere with the condition of slaves in the 
 several States. No Northern gentle- 
 man, to my knowledge, has moved any 
 such question in either House of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 The fears of the South, whatever fears 
 they might have entertained, were al- 
 layed and quieted by this early decis- 
 ion ; and so remained till they were 
 excited afresh, without cause, but for 
 collateral and indirect purposes. AVlien 
 it became necessary, or was thought so, 
 by some political persons, to find an 
 unvarying ground for the exclusion of 
 Northern men from confidence and frona 
 lead in the affairs of the republic, then, 
 and not till then, the cry was raised, and 
 the feeling industriously excited, that 
 the influence of Northern men in the 
 public counsels would endanger the re- 
 lation of master and slave. For myself, 
 I claim no other merit than that this 
 gross and enormous injustice towards 
 the whole North has not wrought upon 
 me to change my opinions or my politi- 
 cal conduct. I hope I anr above A"iolat- 
 ing my i)rinciples, even under the smart 
 of injury and false imputations. Un- 
 just suspicions and undeserved reproach, 
 whatever jtain I may experience from 
 them, will not induce me, 1 tiust, to 
 overstep the limits of constitutional 
 duty, or to encroach on the rights of 
 others. The domestic slavery of the 
 Southern States I leave where I find it, 
 — in the hands of their own govern- 
 ments. It is their alYair, not mine. 
 Nor do I complain of the peculiar eti'ect 
 which the magnitude of that population 
 has had in the distribution of power 
 luider this Federal government. "\\'e 
 know. Sir, that the representation of 
 the States in the other house is not 
 equal. We know that great advantage 
 in that respect is enjoyed by the slave- 
 holding States; and we know, too, that 
 the intended equivalent for that advar.- 
 tage, that is to say, the imposition of 
 direct taxes in the same ratio, hiis be- 
 come merely nominal, the liabit of the 
 
23 i 
 
 THE REPLY TO IL:VYXE. 
 
 government being almost invariably to 
 collect its revenue from other sources 
 and in other modes. Nevertheless, I 
 do not complain; nor would I counter- 
 nance any movement to alter this ar- 
 rangement of representation. It is the 
 original bargain, the compact ; let it 
 stand ; let the advantage of it be f uUy 
 enjoyed. The Union itself is too full 
 of benefit to be hazarded in propositions 
 for changing its original basis. I go for 
 the Constitution as it is, and for the 
 Union as it is. But I am resolved not 
 to submit in silence to accusations, either 
 against myself individually or against 
 the North, ^vllolly unfounded and un- 
 just, — accusations which impute to us 
 a disposition to evade the cou.stitutional 
 compact, and to extend the power of the 
 government over the internal laws and 
 domestic condition of the States. All 
 such accusations, wherever and whenever 
 made, all insinuations of the existence of 
 any such pm^poses, I know and feel to be 
 groundless and injurious. And we must 
 confide in Southern gentlemen them- 
 selves ; we must trust to those whose in- 
 tegrity of heart and magnanimity of feel- 
 inji' will lead them to a desire to maintain 
 and disseminate truth, and who possess 
 the means of its diffusion with the 
 Southern public; we must leave it to 
 them to disabuse tliat public of its prej- 
 udices. But in the mean tune, for my 
 oyni part, I shall continue to act justly, 
 wliether those towards whom justice is 
 exercised receive it with candor or with 
 contumely. 
 
 Having had occasion to recur to the 
 Ordinance of 1787, in order to defend 
 myself against the inferences which the 
 honorable member has chosen to draw 
 from my former observations on that 
 eubject, 1 am not willing now entirely 
 to take leave of it without another re- 
 mark. It need hardly be said, that that 
 paper exprcs.ses just sentiments on the 
 gieat subject of civil and religious 
 liberty. Such sentiments were com- 
 mon, and abound in all our state papers 
 of that day. But this Ordinance did 
 that which was not so common, and 
 wiiicli is not even now universal; that is, 
 it set forth and declared it to be a high 
 
 and binding duty of government itself 
 to support schools and advance the means 
 of education, on the plain reason that 
 religion, moralit}", and knowledge are 
 necessarj' to good government, and to the 
 happiness of mankind. One observa- 
 tion fiu'ther. The important provision 
 incoii)orated into the Constitution of the 
 United States, and into .several of those 
 of the States, and recently, as Me have 
 seen, adopted into the reformed consti 
 tution of Virginia, restraining legisla- 
 tive power in (questions of private right, 
 and from impairing the obligation of 
 contracts, is first introduced and estab- 
 lished, as far as I am informed, as matter 
 of express written constitutional law, in 
 this Ordinance of 1787. And I must 
 add, also, in regard to the author of the 
 Ordinance, who has not had the happi- 
 ness to attract the gentleman's notice 
 heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, 
 that he was chairman of that select com- 
 mittee of the old Congress, whose report 
 first expressed the strong sense of that 
 body, that the old Confederation was 
 not adequate to the exigencies of the 
 country, and recommended to the States 
 to send delegates to the convention which 
 formed the present Constitution. 
 
 An attempt has been made to transfer 
 from the North to the South the honor 
 of this exclusion of slavery from the 
 Northwestern Territory. The journal, 
 without argument or comment, refutes 
 such attempts. The cession by Virginia 
 was made in March, 178-1. On the llrth 
 of April following, a committee, consist- 
 ing of Messrs. Jefferson, Chase, and 
 Ilowell, reported a plan for a temporai-y 
 government of the territoiy, in which 
 was this article: "That, after tiie year 
 1800, there shall be neither slavery nor 
 involuntary servitude in any of the said 
 States, otherwiise than in punishment of 
 crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
 convicted." Mr. Spaight of North Caro- 
 lina moved to strike out this paragiaph. 
 The question was put, according to the 
 form then practised, " Shall these words 
 stantl as a part of the plan? " New 
 Hampshire, ^Massachusetts, Rhode Isl- 
 and, Connecticut, New York, New Jer- 
 sey, aud Pennsylvania, seven Stales, 
 
THE REPLY TO H^\,YNE. 
 
 235 
 
 voted in the affirmative; Maryland, Vir- 
 ginia, and South Carolina, in tlie nega- 
 tive. North Carolina was divided. As 
 the consent of nine States was necessary, 
 the words could not stand, and were 
 struck out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson 
 voted for the clause, but was overruled 
 by his colleagues. 
 
 In March of the next year (1785), 'Mr. 
 King of Massachusetts, seconded by ^Ir. 
 Ellery of llhode Island, proposed the 
 fonuerly rejected article, with this addi- 
 tion : ' ' And that this regulation shall be 
 an article of compact, and remain a 
 fundamental principle of the constitu- 
 tions between the thirteen original 
 States, and each of the States described 
 in the resolve." On this clause, which 
 provided the adequate and thorough 
 security, the eight Northern States at 
 that time voted affirmatively, and the 
 four Southern States negatively. The 
 votes of nine States were not yet obtained, 
 and thus the provision was again rejected 
 by the Southern States. The persever- 
 ance of the North held out, and two 
 years afterwards the object was attained. 
 It is no derogation from the credit, what- 
 ever that may be, of drawing the Ordi- 
 nance, that its principles had before been 
 prepared and discussed, in the form of 
 i"esolutions. If one should reason in 
 that way, what would become of the dis- 
 tinguished honor of the author of the 
 Declaration of Independence? There is 
 not a sentiment in that paper which had 
 not been voted and resolved in the as- 
 semblies, and other pofiular bodies in the 
 country, over and over again. 
 
 But the honorable member has now 
 found out that this gentleman, ^Ir. Dane, 
 was a member of the Hartford Conven- 
 tion. However uninformed the honor- 
 able member may be of characters and 
 occurrences at the North, it would seem 
 that he has at his elbow, on this occa- 
 sion, some high-minded and lofty spirit, 
 some magnanimous and true-hearted 
 monitor, possessing the means of local 
 knowledge, and ready to supply the 
 honorable member with every thing, 
 down even to forgotten and moth-eateu 
 two-penny pamphlets, which may be 
 used to the disadvantage of his own 
 
 country. But as to the Hartford Con- 
 vention, Sir, allow me to say, that the 
 proceedings of that body seem now to 
 be less read and studied in New England 
 than farther South. They appear to 
 be looked to, not in New England, but 
 elsewhere, for the purpose of seeing how 
 far they may serve as a precedent. But 
 they will not answer the purpose, they 
 are quite too tame. The latitude in 
 which they originated was too cold. 
 Other conventions, of more recent exist- 
 ence, have gone a whole bar's length 
 beyond it. The learned doctors of Colle- 
 ton and Abbeville have pushed their 
 commentaries on the Hartford collect so 
 far, that the original text-writers are 
 thrown entirely into the shade. I have 
 nothing to do. Sir, with the Hartford 
 Convention. Its journal, which the gen- 
 tleman has quoted, I never read. So far 
 as the honorable member may discover 
 in its proceedings a spirit in any degree 
 resembling that which was avowed and 
 justified in those other conventions to 
 which I have alluded, or so far as those 
 proceedings can be shown to be disloyal 
 to the Constitution, or tending to dis- 
 union, so far I shall be as ready as any 
 one to bestow on them reprehension and 
 censure. 
 
 Having dwelt long on this convention, 
 and other occurrences of that day, in the 
 hope, probably, (which will not be grati- 
 fied,) that I should leave the course of 
 this debate to follow him at length in 
 those excursions, the honorable member 
 returned, and attempted another object. 
 He referred to a speech of mine in the 
 other house, the same which I had occa- 
 sion to allude to myself, the other day; 
 and has (juoted a passage or two fi'om it, 
 with a bold, though uneasy and labor- 
 ing, air of confidence, as if he had de- 
 tected in me an inconsistency. Judging 
 from the gentleman's manner, a stranger 
 to the course of the debate and to the 
 jwint in discussion would have imagined, 
 from so triumphant a tone, that the hon- 
 orable member was about to overwhelm 
 me with a manifest contradiction. Any 
 one who heard him, and who had not 
 heard what I had, in fact, previously 
 said, must have thought me routed and 
 
236 
 
 THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 
 
 discomfited, as the gentleman had prom- 
 ised. Sir, a breath blows all this triumph 
 away. There is not the slightest differ- 
 ence in the purport of my remarks on 
 the two occasions. What I said here on 
 "Wednesday is in exact accordance with 
 the opinion expressed by me in the other 
 house in 1825. Though the gentleman 
 had the metaphysics of Hudibras, though 
 
 he were able 
 
 " to sever and divide 
 A hair 'twixt north and northwest side," 
 
 he yet could not insert his metaphysical 
 scissors between the fair reading of my 
 remarks in 1825, and what I said here 
 last week. There is not only no contra- 
 diction, no difference, but, in truth, too 
 exact a similarity, both in thought and 
 language, to be entirely in just taste. I 
 had myself quoted the same speech ; had 
 recurred to it, and spoke with it open 
 before me ; and much of what I said was 
 little more than a repetition from it. 
 In order to make finishing work with 
 this alleged contradiction, permit me to 
 recur to the origin of this debate, and 
 review its course. This seems expedi- 
 ent, and may be done as well now as at 
 any time. 
 
 Well, then, its history is this. The 
 honorable member from Connecticut 
 moved a resolution, which constitutes 
 the first brancii of that which is now be- 
 fore us; that is to say, a resolution, in- 
 structing the committee on public lands 
 to inquire into the expediency of limit- 
 ing, for a certain period, the sales of the 
 public lands, to such as have heretofore 
 been offered for sale ; and whether sun- 
 dry offices connected with the sales of 
 the lands might not be abolished with- 
 out detriment to the public service. In 
 the progress of the discussion which 
 arose on this resolution, an honorable 
 member from New Hampshire moved to 
 amend the resolution, so as entirely to 
 reverse its object; that is, to strike it all 
 out, and insert a direction to the com- 
 mittee to inquire into the expediency of 
 adojiting measures to hasten the sales, 
 and extend more rapidly the suiveys, of 
 the lands. 
 
 The honorable member from Maine* 
 1 Mr. Spnigue. 
 
 suggested that both those propositions 
 might well enough go for consideiation 
 to the committee; and in this state of 
 the question, the member from South 
 Carolina addressed the Senate in his 
 first speech. He rose, he said, to give 
 us his own free thoughts on the ptiblic 
 lands. I saw him rise with pleasure, 
 and listened with exjiectation, thoiigh 
 before he concluded I was filled with 
 surjjrise. Certainly, I was never more 
 surprised, than to find him following 
 up, to the extent he did, the sentiments 
 and opinions which the gentleman from 
 Missouri had put forth, and which it is 
 known he has long entertained. 
 
 I need not repeat at large the general 
 topics of the honorable gentleman's 
 speech. When he said yesterday that 
 he did not attack the Eastern States, he 
 certainly must have forgotten, not only 
 particular remarks, but the whole drift 
 and tenor of his speech ; unless he means 
 by not attacking, that he did not com- 
 mence hostilities, but that another had 
 preceded him in the attack. He, in the 
 first place, disapproved of the whole 
 course of the government, for forty 
 years, in regard to its disposition of the 
 public lands; and then, turning north- 
 ward and eastward, and fancying he had 
 found a cause for alleged narrowness 
 and niggardliness in the " accursed pol- 
 icy " of the tariff, to which he repre- 
 sented the people of New England as 
 wedded, he went on for a full hour with 
 remarks, the whole scope of which was 
 to exhibit the results of this policy, in 
 feelings and in measures unfavorable to 
 the West. I thought his opinions un- 
 founded and erroneous, as to the gener;il 
 course of the government, and ventured 
 to reply to them. 
 
 Tlie gentleman had remarked on the 
 analog^' of other cases, and quoted the 
 conduct of Eurojiean governments to- 
 wards their own subjects settling on this 
 continent, as in point, to show that we 
 had been harsh and rigid in selling, when 
 we should have given the public lands to 
 settlers without price. I thought the 
 honorable member had suffered his judg- 
 ment to be betravod bv a false analogv; 
 that he was struck with an appearance 
 
THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 
 
 2G7 
 
 of resemlilance where there was no real 
 Bimilitude. I think so still. The first 
 settlers of North America were enter- 
 prising spirits, engaged in private ad- 
 venture, or fleeing from tyranny at 
 home. When arrived here, they were 
 forgotten by tlie mother country, or re- 
 membered only to be oppressed. Car- 
 ried away again by tlie appearance of 
 analogy, or struck with the eloquence of 
 the piissage, the honorable member yes- 
 terday obser\'ed, that the conduct of 
 government towards the Western emi- 
 grants, or my representation of it, 
 brought to his mind a celebrated speech 
 in the British Tarliament. It was. Sir, 
 the speech of Colonel Barre. On the 
 question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I 
 forget which. Colonel Barre had heard a 
 member on the treasury bench argue, 
 that the people of the United States, be- 
 ing British colonists, planted by the ma- 
 ternal care, nourished by the indulgence, 
 and protected by the arms of England, 
 would not grudge their mite to relieve 
 the mother country from the heavy bur- 
 den under which she groaned. The 
 language of Colonel Barre, in reply to 
 this, was: " They planted by your care? 
 Tour oppression planted tliem in Amer- 
 ica. They fled from your tyranny, and 
 grew by your neglect of them. So soon 
 as you began to care for them, you 
 showed your care by sending persons to 
 spy out their liberties, misrepresent their 
 character, prey upon them, and eat out 
 their substance." 
 
 And how does the honorable gentle- 
 man mean to maintain, that language 
 like this is applicable to the conduct of 
 Ihe government of the United States 
 tow irds the Western emigrants, or to 
 any representation given by me of that 
 conduct? AVere the settlers in the West 
 driven thither by our oppression? Have 
 they flourished only by our neglect of 
 them? Has the government done noth- 
 ing but prey upon them, and eat out 
 their substance? Sir, this fervid elo- 
 quence of the British speaker, just when 
 and where it was uttered, and fit to re- 
 main an exercise for the schools, is not 
 a little out of place, when it is brought 
 thence to be applied here to the conduct 
 
 of our own country towards her own cit- 
 izens. From America to England, it 
 may be true; from Americans to their 
 own government, it would be strange 
 language. Let us leave it, to be recited 
 and declaimed by our boys against a for- 
 eign nation; not introduce it here, to 
 recite and declaim ourselves against our 
 own. 
 
 But I come to the i)oint of the al- 
 leged contradiction. In my icmarks on 
 Wednesday, I contended that we could 
 not give away gratuitously all the public 
 lands ; that we held them in trust ; that 
 the government had solemnly pledged 
 itself to dispose of tliem as a common 
 fund for the common benefit, and to sell 
 and settle them as its discretion should 
 dictate. Now, Sir, what contradiction 
 does the gentleman find to this senti- 
 ment in the sj^ech of 1825? lie quotes 
 me as having then said, that we ought 
 not to hug these lands as a very great 
 treasure. Very well, Sir, supposing me 
 to be accurately reported in that expres- 
 sion, what is the contradiction? I have 
 not now said, that we should hug these 
 lands as a favorite source of pecuniai-y 
 income. No such thing. It is not my 
 view. "\Miat I have said, and what I do 
 say, is, that they are a common fund, to 
 be disposed of for the common benefit, 
 to be sold at low prices for the accom- 
 modation of settlers, keeping the object 
 of settling the lands as much in view as 
 that of raising money from them. This 
 I say now, and this I have always said 
 Is this hugging them as a favorite treas- 
 lu'e? Is there no difference bet^veen 
 hugging and hoarding this fund, on the 
 one hand, as a great treasure, and, on 
 the other, of disposing of it at low prices, 
 placing the proceeds in the general treas- 
 ury of the Union? My opinion is, that 
 as much is to be made of the land as 
 fairly and reasonably may be, selling it 
 all the while at such rates as to give the 
 fullest effect to settlement. This is not 
 giving it all away to the States, as the 
 gentleman would propose ; nor is it hug- 
 ging the fund closely and tenaciously, 
 as a favorite treasure; but it is, in my 
 judgment, a just and wise policy, per- 
 fectly according with all the various du- 
 
23S 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 ties -nliich rest on government. So much 
 for my contradiction. And what is it? 
 Where is the gi-ound of the gentleman's 
 triumph? What inconsistency in word 
 or doctrine has he been able to detect? 
 Sir, if this be a sample of that discom- 
 fiture -with which the honorable gentle- 
 man threatened me, commend me to 
 the word discomjiture for the rest of my 
 life. 
 
 But, after all, this is not the point of 
 the debate; and I must now bring the 
 gentleman back to what is the point. 
 
 The real question between me and him 
 is, lias the doctrine been advanced at 
 the South or the East, that the popula- 
 tion of the West should be retarded, or 
 at least need not be hastened, on ac- 
 count of its effect to drain off the people 
 from the Atlantic States? Is this doc- 
 trine, as has been alleged, of Eastern 
 origin? That is the question. Has the 
 gentleman found any thing by which he 
 can make good his accusation? I sub- 
 mit to the Senate, that he has entirely 
 failed; and, as far as this debate has 
 shown, the only person who has ad- 
 vanced such sentiments is a gentleman 
 from South Carolina, and a friend of the 
 honorable member himseH. The hon- 
 orable gentleman has given no answer to 
 this; there is none which can be given. 
 The simple fact, while it requires no 
 comment to enforce it, defies all argu- 
 ment to refute it. I could refer to the 
 speeches of another Southern gentle- 
 man, in years before, of the same gen- 
 eral character, and to the same effect, as 
 that which has been quoted; but I will 
 not consume the time of the Senate by 
 the reading of them. 
 
 So then, Sir, Xew England is guiltless 
 of the policy of retarding Western popu- 
 lation, and of all envy and jealousy of 
 the growth of the new States. What- 
 ever there be of that policy in the coun- 
 try, no part of it is hers. If it has a 
 local habitation, the honorable member 
 has probably seen by tliis time where to 
 look for it; and if it now has received a 
 name, he has liimself christened it. 
 
 We approach, at length, Sir, to a more 
 important part of the honorable gentle- 
 man's observations. Since it does not 
 
 accord with my views of justice and 
 policy to give away the public lands 
 altogether, as a mere matter of gratuity, 
 I am asked by the honorable gentleman 
 on what ground it is that I consent to 
 vote them away in particular instances. 
 How, he inquires, do I reconcile with 
 these professed sentiments, my supfKjrt 
 of measures appropriating portions of 
 the lands to particular roads, particular 
 canals, particular rivers, and particular 
 institutions of education in the West? 
 This leads. Sir, to the real and wide dif- 
 ference in political opinion between the 
 honorable gentleman and myself. On 
 my part, I look upon all these objects as 
 connected with the common good, fairly 
 embraced in its object and its terms; 
 he, on the contrars-, deems them all, if 
 good at all, only local good. This is our 
 difference. The interrogatory which he 
 proceeded to put at once explains this 
 difference. "What interest," asks he, 
 "has South Carolina in a canal in 
 Ohio?" Sir, this very question is full 
 of significance. It develops the gentle- 
 man's whole political system; and its 
 answer expoiuids mine. Here we dif- 
 fer. I look upon a road over the Al- 
 leghanies, a canal round the falls of the 
 Ohio, or a canal or railway from the 
 Atlantic to the Western waters, as being 
 an object large and extensive enough to 
 be fairly said to be for the common 
 benefit. The gentleman thinks other- 
 wise, and this is tlie key to his construc- 
 tion of the powers of the government. 
 He may well a.sk what interest has 
 South Carolina in a canal in Ohio. On 
 his system, it is true, she has no interest. 
 On that system, Ohio and Carolina are 
 different governments, and differsnt 
 countries; connected here, it is true, by 
 some slight and ill-defined bond of 
 union, but in all main respects separate 
 and diverse. On that system, Carrlina 
 has no more interest in a canal in Ohio 
 than in Mexico. The gentleman, there- 
 fore, only follows out his own principles; 
 he does no more than arrive at the natu- 
 ral conclusions of his own doctrines; he 
 only announces the true results of that 
 creed which he has adopted himself, and 
 would persuade others to adopt, when he 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 239 
 
 thus declares that South Carolina has no 
 interest in a public work in Ohio. 
 
 Sir, we narrow-minded people of New 
 England do not reason thus. Our notion 
 of things is entirely different. We look 
 ajon the States, not as separated, but as 
 united. We love to dwell on that union, 
 and on the mutual happiness which it 
 has so much promoted, and the common 
 renown which it has so greatly contrib- 
 uted to acquire. In our contemplation, 
 Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same 
 country; States, united under the same 
 general government, having interests, 
 common, associated, intermingled. In 
 whatever is within the proper sphere of 
 the constitutional power of this govern- 
 ment, we look upon the States as one. 
 AVe do not impose geographical limits to 
 our patriotic feeling or regard ; we do not 
 follow rivers and mountains, and lines 
 of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond 
 which public improvements do not ben- 
 efit us. We who come here, as agents 
 and representatives of these narrow- 
 minded and selfish men of New Eng- 
 land, consider ourselves as bound to 
 regard with an equal eye the good of the 
 whole, in whatever is within our powers 
 of legislation. Sir, if a railroad or ca- 
 nal, beginning in South Carolina and 
 ending in South Carolina, appeared to 
 me to be of national importance and 
 national magnitude, believing, as I do, 
 that the power of government extends 
 to the encouragement of works of that 
 description, if I were to stand up here 
 and ask, What interest has Massachu- 
 setts in a railroad in South Carolina? 
 I should not be willing to face my con- 
 stituents. These same narrow-minded 
 men would tell me, that they had sent 
 me to act for the whole country, and that 
 one who possessed too little comprehen- 
 Bion, either of intellect or feeling, one 
 •who was not large enough, both in mind 
 and in heart, to embrace the whole, was 
 not fit to be intnisted with the interest 
 cf any part. 
 
 Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the 
 powers of the government by unjustifi- 
 able construction, nor to exercise any 
 not within a fair interpretation. But 
 when it is believed that a power does 
 
 exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be 
 exercised for the general benefit of the 
 whole. So far as respects the exercise 
 of such a power, the States are one. It 
 was the very object of the Constitution 
 to create unity of interests to the extent 
 of the powers of the general government. 
 In war and peace we are one; in com- 
 merce, one; because the authority of the 
 general government reaches to war and 
 peace, and to the regulation of com- 
 merce. I have never seen any more 
 difficulty in erecting light-houses on the 
 lakes, than on the ocean; in improving 
 the harbors of inland seas, than if they 
 were within the ebb and flow of the tide ; 
 or in removing obstructions in the vast 
 streams of the West, more than in any 
 work to facilitate commerce on tlie At- 
 lantic coast. If there be any power for 
 one, there is power also for the other; 
 and they are all and equally for the com- 
 mon good of the country. 
 
 There are other objects, apparently 
 more local, or the benefit of which is 
 less general, towards which, neverthe- 
 less, I have concurred with others, to 
 give aid by donations of land. It is 
 proposed to construct a road, in or 
 through one of the new States, in which 
 this government possesses large quanti- 
 ties of land. Have the United States 
 no right, or, as a great and untaxed 
 proprietor, are they under no obligation 
 to contribute to an object thus calcu- 
 lated to promote the common good of 
 all the proprietors, themselves included? 
 And even with respect to education, 
 which is the extreme case, let the ques- 
 tion be considered. In the first place, 
 as we have seen, it was made matter of 
 compact with these States, that they 
 should do their part to promote educa- 
 tion. In the next place, our whole sys- 
 tem of land laws proceeds on the idea 
 that education is for the common good; 
 because, in every division, a certain 
 portion is uniformly reserved and ap- 
 propriated for the use of schools. And, 
 finally, have not these new States sin- 
 gularly strong claims, founded on the 
 ground already stated, that the govern- 
 ment is a great untaxed proprietor, in 
 the ownership of the soil? It is a con- 
 
240 
 
 THE KErLY TO IIAYNE. 
 
 Bideration of preat importance, that prob- j 
 ably there is in no part of the country, 
 or of the world, so great call for the 
 means of education, as in these new- 
 States, owing to the vast numbers of 
 persons within those ages in which edu- 
 cation and instruction are usually re- 
 ceived, if received at all. This is the 
 natural consequence of recency of settle- 
 ment and rapid increase. The census 
 of these States shows how great a pro- 
 portion of the whole population occu- 
 pies the classes between infancy and 
 manhood. These are the wide fields, 
 and here is the deep and quick soil for 
 the seeds of knowledge and virtue; and 
 this is the favored season, the very 
 spring-time for sowing tliem. Let them 
 be disseminated without stint. Let them 
 be scattered with a bountiful hand, 
 broadcast. Whatever the government 
 can fairly do towards these objects, in 
 my opinion, ought to be done. 
 
 These, Sir, are the grounds, suc- 
 cinctly stated, on which my votes for 
 grants of land." for particular objects 
 rest; while I maintain, at the same 
 time, that it is all a common fund, for 
 the common benefit. And reasons like 
 these, I presume, have influenced the 
 votes of otlier gentlemen from New 
 England. Those who have a different 
 view of the powers of the government, 
 of course, come to different conclusions, 
 on these, as on other questions. I ob- 
 served, when speaking on this subject be- 
 fore, that it we looked to any measure, 
 whether for a road, a canal, or any thing 
 else, intended for the improvement of 
 the West, it would be found that, if the 
 New England aijes were struck out of 
 the lists of votes, the Southern noo- 
 would always have rejected the meas- 
 ure. The truth of this has not been 
 denied, and cannot be denied. Li stat- 
 ing this, I thought it just to ascribe it 
 to the constitutional scruples of the 
 South, rather than to any other less 
 favorable or less charitable cause. But 
 no S(X)ner had I done this, than the lion- 
 oiable gentleman asks if I reproach him 
 and liis friends with their constitutional 
 sciiiplos. Sir, I rt'proadi nobody. I 
 stated a fact, and gave the most respect- 
 
 ful reason for it that occurred to me. 
 The gentleman cannot deny the fact ; he 
 may, if he choose, disclaim the reason. 
 It is not long since I had occasion, in 
 presenting a petition from his own State, 
 to account for its being intrusted to my 
 hands, by saying, that the constitntionaJ 
 opinions of the gentleman and his wor- 
 thy colleague prevented them from sup- 
 porting it. Sir, did I state this as matter 
 of reproach? Far from it. Did I att<mpt 
 to find any other cause than an honest one 
 for these scruples? Sir, I did not. It did 
 not become me to doubt or to ins-innate 
 that the gentleman had either changed 
 his sentiments, or that he had made up a 
 set of constitutional opinions accommo- 
 dated to any particular combination of 
 political occurrences. Had I done so, I 
 should have felt, that, while I was enti- 
 tled to little credit in thus questioning 
 other people's motives, I justified the 
 wliole world in suspecting my own. But 
 how has the gentleman returned this 
 respect for others' opinions? His own 
 candor and justice, how have they been 
 exhibited towards the motives of others, 
 while he has been at so much pains to 
 maintain, what nobody has disputed, 
 the purity of his own ? Why, Sir, he 
 has asked when, and how, and why Xew 
 England votes were found going for 
 measures favorable to the West. He has 
 demanded to be informed whether all 
 this did not begin in 18"2o. and while the 
 election of President was still pending. 
 
 Sir, to these questions retort would be 
 justified; and it is both cogent and at 
 liand. Xevertheless, I will answer the 
 in(piiry, not by retort, but by facts. 1 
 will tell the gentleman when, ami how, 
 and why New England has sujiported 
 measuies favorable to the West. 1 have 
 already referred to the early history of 
 the government, to the first acquisition 
 of the lands, to the original laws for 
 disposing of them, and for governing 
 the territories where they lie ; and have 
 shown the influence of New England 
 men and New England principles in 
 all these leading measures. I should 
 not be pardoned were I to go over 
 that ground again. Coming to more 
 recent times, and to measures of a less 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 241 
 
 general character, I have endeavored to 
 prove that every thhig of this kind, de- 
 signed for Western improvement, has de- 
 pended on the votes of New Enghind; 
 all this is true beyond the power of con- 
 tradiction. And now, Sir, there are two 
 measui-es to which I will refer, not so 
 ancient as to belong to the early liistory 
 of the public lands, and not so recent as 
 to be on this side of the period when 
 the gentleman charitably imagines a 
 new direction may have been given to 
 New England feeling and New England 
 votes. These measures, and the New 
 England votes in support of them, may 
 be taken as sampies and specimens of all 
 the rest. 
 
 In 1820 (observe, Mr. President, in 
 1820) the people of the West besought 
 Congress for a reduction in the price of 
 lands. In favor of that reduction, New 
 England, with a delegation of forty 
 members in the other house, gave thirty- 
 three votes, and one only against it. 
 The four Southern States, with more 
 than fifty members, gave thirty-two votes 
 for it, and seven against it. Again, in 
 1821, (observe again. Sir, the time,).the 
 law passed for the relief of the purchas- 
 ers of the public lands. This was a 
 measure of vital importance to the West, 
 and more especially to the Southwest. 
 It authorized the relinquishment of con- 
 tracts for lands which had been entered 
 into at high prices, and a reduction in 
 other ca-ses of not less than thirty-seven 
 and a half per cent on the purchase- 
 money. Many millions of dollars, six 
 or seven, I believe, probably much more, 
 were relinquished by this law. On this 
 bill, New England, with her forty mem- 
 bers, gave more affirmative votes than 
 the four Southern States, with their fifty- 
 two or fifty-three members. These two 
 are far the most important general meas- 
 ures respecting the public lands which 
 have been adopted witliin tlie last twenty 
 years- They took place in 1820 and 
 1821 That is the time when. 
 
 As to the manner how, the gentleman 
 already sees that it was by voting in 
 solid column for the required relief; 
 and, lastly, as to the cause why, I tell 
 the gentleman it was because the mem- 
 
 bers from New England thought the 
 measures just and salutai-y ; because thev 
 entertained towards the W^est neither 
 envy, hatred, nor malice; because they 
 deemed it becoming them, as just and 
 enlightened public men, to meet the ex- 
 igency which had arisen in the West 
 witli the appropriate measure of relief; 
 because they felt it due to their own 
 characters, and the characters of their 
 New England predecessors in this gov- 
 ernment, to act towards the new States 
 in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, 
 magnanimous policy. So much. Sir, for 
 the cause why; and I hope that by this 
 tune, Sir, the honorable gentleman is 
 satisfied; if not, I do not know when, oi 
 how, or why he ever will be. 
 
 Having recm-red to these two impor- 
 tant measures, in answer to the gentle- 
 man's inquiries, I must now beg per- 
 mission to go back to a period somewhat 
 earlier, for the purpose of still further 
 showing how much, or rather how little, 
 reason there is for the gentleman's in- 
 sinuation that political hopes or fears, or 
 party associations, were the gi'ounds of 
 these New England votes. And after 
 what has been said, I hope it may be 
 forgiven me if I allude to some political 
 opinions and votes of my own, of veiy 
 little public importance certainly, but 
 which, from the time at which they were 
 given and expressed, may pass for good 
 witnesses on this occasion. 
 
 This government, Mr. President, from 
 its origin to the peace of 1815, had been 
 too much engrossed with various other 
 important concerns to be able to turu 
 its tlioiights inward, and look to the de- 
 velopment of its vast internal resources. 
 In the early part of President Wash- 
 ington's administration, it was fully 
 occupied with completing its own or- 
 ganization, providing for the public 
 debt, defending the frontiei-s, and main- 
 taining domestic peace. Before the ter- 
 mination of that administration, the 
 fires of the French Revolution blazed 
 forth, as from a new-opened volcano, 
 and the whole breadth of the ocean did 
 not secure us from its effects. The smoke 
 and the cinders readied us, though not 
 I tlie burning lava. Difficult and agitating 
 16 
 
242 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 questions, embarrassing to government 
 and dividing public opinion, sprung out 
 o£ the new state of our foreign relations, 
 and were succeeded by others, and yet 
 again by others, equally embarrassing 
 and equally exciting division and dis- 
 cord, through the long series of twenty 
 years, till they finally issued in the war 
 with England. Down to the close of 
 that war, no distinct, marked, and de- 
 liberate attention had been given, or 
 could have been given, to the internal 
 condition of the country, its capacities of 
 improvement, or the constitutional power 
 of the government in regard to objects 
 connected with such improvement. 
 
 The peace, Mr. President, brought 
 about an entirely new and a most inter- 
 esting state of things; it opened to us 
 other prospects and suggested other du- 
 ties. We ourselves were changed, and 
 the whole world was changed. The 
 pacification of Europe, after June, 1815, 
 assumed a firm and permanent aspect. 
 The nations evidently manifested that 
 they were disposed for peace. Some 
 agitation of the waves might be expected, 
 even after the storm had subsided ; but 
 the tendency was, strongly and rapidly, 
 towards settled repose. 
 
 It so happened, Sir, that I was at that 
 time a member of Congress, and, like 
 others, naturally turned my thoughts to 
 the contemplation of the recently altered 
 condition of the country and of the 
 world. It appeared plainly enough to 
 me, as well as to wiser and more experi- 
 enced men, that the policy of the gov- 
 ernment would naturally take a start in 
 a new direction; because new directions 
 would necess.arily be given to the pur- 
 suits and occupations of the people. We 
 liad pushed our commerce far and fast, 
 under the iidvantage of a neutral tiag. 
 hut there were now no longer flags, 
 either neutral or belligerent. The har- 
 vest of neutrality had been great, but 
 we had gathered it all. With the peace 
 of Europe, it was obvious there would 
 spring up in her circle of nations a re- 
 vived and invigorated spirit of trade, 
 and a new activity in all the business 
 and objects of civilized life. Hereafter, 
 our commercial gains were to be earned 
 
 only by success in a close and intense 
 competition. Other nations would pro- 
 duce for themselves, and carry for them- 
 selves, and manufacture for themselves, 
 to the full extent of their abilities. The 
 crops of our plains would no longer sus- 
 tain European armies, nor our ships 
 longer supply those whom war had ren- 
 dered unable to supply themselves It 
 was obvious, that, under these circum- 
 stances, the country would begin tc 
 survey itself, and to estimate its own 
 capacity of improvement. 
 
 And this improvement, — how was it 
 to be accomplished, and who was to ac- 
 complish it? We were ten or twelve 
 millions of people, spread over almost 
 half a world. AVe were more than 
 twenty States, some stretching along 
 the same seaboard, some along the same 
 line of inland frontier, and others on 
 opposite banks of the same vast rivers. 
 Two considerations at once presented 
 themselves with great force, in looking 
 at this state of things. One was. that 
 that great branch of improvement which 
 consisted in furnishing new facilities of 
 intercourse necessarily ran into different 
 States in every leading instance, and 
 would benefit the citizens of all such 
 States. No one State, therefore, in 
 such cases, would assume the whole ex- 
 pense, nor was the co-operation of sev- 
 eral States to be expected. Take the 
 instance of the Delaware breakwater. 
 It will cost several millions of money. 
 Would Pennsylvania alone ever have 
 constructed it? Certainly never, while 
 this Union lasts, because it is not for 
 her sole benefit. AVould Pennsylvania, 
 New Jersey, and Delaware have united 
 to accomplish it at their joint expense ? 
 Certainly not, for the same reason. It 
 could not be done, therefore, but by the 
 general government. The same may 
 be said of the large inland undertakings, 
 except that, in them, government, in- 
 stead of bearing the whole expense, 
 co-oi^erates with otliers who bear a part. 
 The other consideration is, that the 
 United States have the means. They 
 enjoy the revenues derived from com- 
 merce, and the States have no abundant 
 and easy sources of public income The 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 2:13 
 
 cuslom-houses fill the general treasury, 
 while the States have scanty resources, 
 except by resort to heavy direct taxes 
 
 L'nder this view of tilings, I thought 
 it necessary to settle, at least for myself, 
 some definite notions witli respect to the 
 j>o\vers of the government in regard to 
 internal affairs. It may not savor too 
 much of self-commendation to remark, 
 that, with this object, I considered the 
 Constitution, its judicial construction, 
 its contenjporaneous exposition, and the 
 whole history of the legislation of Con- 
 gress under it; and I arrived at the 
 conclusion, that government had power 
 to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in 
 their accomplishment, which are now 
 commonly spoken of as Inteunal Im- 
 puovKMENTS. That conclusion. Sir, 
 may have been right, or it may have 
 been wrong. I am not about to argue 
 the grounds of it at large. I say only, 
 that it was adopted and acted on even 
 so early as in 1816. Yes, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, I made up my opinion, and deter- 
 mined on my intended course of political 
 conduct, on these subjects, in the Four- 
 teenth Congress, in 1816. And now, 
 Mr. President, I have further to say, 
 that I made up these opinions, and en- 
 tered on this course of political conduct, 
 Teucro duce.^ Yes, Sir, I pursued in all 
 this a South Carolina track on the doc- 
 trines of internal improvement. South 
 Carolina, as she was then represented in 
 the other house, set forth in 1816 under 
 a fresh and leading breeze, and I was 
 among the followers. But if my leader 
 sees new lights and turns a sharp cor- 
 ner, unless I see new lights also, I keep 
 straight on in the same path. I repeat, 
 that leading gentlemen from South Caro- 
 lina were first and foremost in behalf of 
 the doctrines of internal improvements, 
 when those doctrines came first to be 
 considered and acted upon in Congress. 
 The debate on the bank question, on the 
 tariff of 1816, and on the direct tax, 
 will show who was who, and what was 
 what, at that time. 
 
 The tariff of 1816, (one of the plain 
 
 ^- Mr. Calhoun, when this speech was made, 
 was I'resitlent of the Senate, and Vice-Presi- 
 dent of the United States. 
 
 cases of oppression and usurpation, from 
 which, if the government does not re- 
 cede, individual States may justly secede 
 from the government,) is, Sir, in truth, 
 a South Carolina tariff, supported by 
 South Carolina votes. But for those 
 votes, it could not have passed in the 
 form in which it did pass; whereas, if 
 it had depended on Massachusetts votes, 
 it would have been lost. Does not tlie 
 honorable gentleman well know all this? 
 There are certainly those who do, full 
 well, know it all. I do not say this to 
 reproach South Carolina. 1 only state 
 the fact; and I think it will appear to 
 be true, that among the earliest and 
 boldest advocates of the tariff, as a 
 measure of protection, and on the ex- 
 press ground of protection, were leading 
 gentlemen of South Carolina in Con- 
 gress. I did not then, and cannot now, 
 understand their language in any other 
 sense. While this tariff of 1816 was 
 under discussion in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, an honorable gentleman from 
 Georgia, now of this house, '^ moved to 
 reduce the proposed duty on cotton. He 
 failed, by four votes. South Carolina giv- 
 ing three votes (enough to have turned the 
 scale) against his motion. The act. Sir, 
 then passed, and received on its passage 
 the support of a majority of the Repre- 
 sentatives of South Carolina present 
 and voting. This act is the first in th(» 
 order of those now denounced as plain 
 usurpations. We see it daily in the 
 list, by the side of those of 1824 and 
 1828, as a case of manifest oppression, 
 justifying disunion. I put it home to 
 the honorable member from South Caro- 
 lina, that his own State was not only 
 " art and part" in this measure, but the 
 cawta causans. AVithout her aid, this 
 seminal principle of mischief, this root 
 of Upas, could not have been planted. 
 I have already said, and it is true, that 
 this act proceeded on the ground of pro- 
 tection. It interfered directly with exist- 
 ing interests of great value and amount. 
 It cut up the Calcutta cotton trade by 
 the roots; but it passed, nevertheless, 
 and it passed on the principle of pro- 
 tecting manufactures, on the principle 
 
 » Mr. Forsyth. 
 
244 
 
 THE REPLY TO ILVYNE. 
 
 against free trade, on the principle op- 
 posed to that which lets us alone. 
 
 Sucu, Mr. President, were the opin- 
 ions of important and leading gentlemen 
 from South Carolina, on the subject of 
 internal improvement, in 1816. I went 
 out of Congress the next year, and, re- 
 turning again in 1823, thought I found 
 South Carolina where I had left her. I 
 really supposed that all things remained 
 as they were, and that the South Caro- 
 lina doctrine of internal improvements 
 would be defended by the same eloquent 
 voices, and the same strong arms, as 
 formerly. In the lapse of these six 
 years, it is true, political associations 
 had assumed a new aspect and new di- 
 visions. A strong party had arisen in 
 the South hostile to the doctrine of in- 
 ternal improvements. Anti-consolida- 
 tion was the flag under which this party 
 fought; and its supporters inveighed 
 against internal improvements, much 
 after the manner in which the honorable 
 gentleman has now inveighed against 
 them, as part and parcel of the system 
 of consolidation. Whether this party 
 arose in South Carolina itself, or in the 
 neighborhood, is more than I know. I 
 tliink the latter. However that may 
 have been, there were those found in 
 South Carolina ready to make war ujwn 
 it, and who did make intrepid war upon 
 it. Names being regarded as things in 
 such controversies, they bestowed on 
 the anti-improvement gentlemen the aj^v 
 pellation of Radicals. Yes, Sir, the 
 appellation of Radicals, as a terra of 
 distinction applicable and applied to 
 those who denied the liberal doctrines 
 of internal improvement, originated, 
 according to the best of my recollection, 
 somewhere between North Carolina and 
 Georgia. Well, Sir, these mischim-ous 
 Radicals were to be put down, and the 
 strong arm of South Carolina was 
 stretched out to put them down. About 
 this time I returned to Congress. The 
 battle with the Radicals had been 
 fought, and our South Carolina cham- 
 pions of the doctrines of internal im- 
 provement had nobly maintained their 
 ground, and were understood to have 
 achieved a victory. We looked upon 
 
 them as conquerors. They had driven 
 back the enemy with discomfiture, a 
 thing, by the way. Sir, which is not 
 always performed when it is promised. 
 A gentleman to whom I have already 
 referred in this debate had come into 
 Congress, during my absence from it, 
 from South Carolina, and hid brouglit 
 with him a high reputation for ability. 
 He came from a school with which we 
 had been acquainted, et noscitur a sociis. 
 I hold in my hand, Sir, a printed speech 
 of this distinguished gentleman, ^ " Ox 
 Intekn.\l Imphovements," delivered 
 about the period to which I now refer, 
 and printed with a lew introductory re- 
 marks upon consolidation ; in which. Sir, 
 I think he quite consolidated the argu- 
 ments of his opponents, the Radicals, if 
 to crush be to consolidate. I give you 
 a short but significant quotation from 
 these remarks. He is speaking of a 
 pamphlet, then recently publislied, en- 
 titled "Consolidation "; and, having al- 
 luded to the question of renewing the 
 charter of the former Bank of the United 
 States, he says: — 
 
 " Moreover, in the early history of parties, 
 and when Mr. Crawford advocated a re- 
 newal of the old charter, it was considered 
 a Federal measure ; which internal improve- 
 ment never was, as this author erroneously 
 states. This latter measure originated in 
 tlie administration of Mr. Jefferson, with the 
 appropriation for the Cumberland Road ; 
 and was first proposed, as a system, by Mr. 
 Callioun, and carried through the House of 
 Representatives by a large majority of tlie 
 Republicans, including almost every one of 
 the leading men who carried us tlirough the 
 late war." 
 
 So, then, internal improvement is not 
 one of the Federal heresies. One para- 
 graph more. Sir: — 
 
 " The author in question, not content with 
 denouncing as FederaUsts, General Jackson, 
 Mr. Adams, Mr. Callioun, and the majority 
 of the South Carolina delegation in Con 
 gress, modestly extends the denunciation 
 to Mr. Monroe and the whole Repulilican 
 party. Here are his words : ' During the 
 administration of Mr. Monroe much hau 
 passed which the RepubUcan party would 
 
 1 Mr. McDuffie. 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE 
 
 24^ 
 
 be glad to approve if Hiey could ! ! But the 
 principal feature, and that which has chiefly 
 elicited these observations, is the renewal 
 of the System of Interval Improve- 
 ments.' Now this measure was adopted by 
 a vote of 115 to 8G of a Republican Con- 
 gress, and sanctioned by a Hepublican Pres- 
 ident. Who, then, is this autlior, who as- 
 sumes the high prerogative of denouncing, 
 in the name of the Republican party, the 
 Republican administration of the coun- 
 try 1 A denunciation including within its 
 sweep Calhoun, Lowndes, and Cheves, men 
 who will be regarded as the brightest orna 
 nicnts of South Carolina, and the strongest 
 pillars of the Republican party, as long as 
 the late war shall be remembered, and tal- 
 ents and patriotism shall be regarded as the 
 proper objects of the admiration and grati- 
 tude of a free people ! ! " 
 
 Such are the opinions, Sir, -which were 
 maintained by South Carolina gentle- 
 men, in the House of Representatives, 
 on the subject of internal improvements, 
 vrhen I took my seat there as a memlier 
 from Massachusetts in 1823. But this 
 is not all. We had a bill before us, and 
 passed it in that house, entitled, "An 
 Act to procure the necessary surveys, 
 plans, and estimates upon the subject of 
 roads and canals." It authorized the 
 President to cause surveys and estimates 
 to be made of the routes of such roads 
 and canals as he might deem of national 
 importance in a commercial or military 
 point of view, or for the transportation 
 of the mail, and appropriated thirty 
 thousand dollars out of the treasury to 
 defray the expense. This act, though 
 preliminary in its nature, covered the 
 whole ground. It took for granted the 
 complete power of internal improvement, 
 as far as any of its advocates had ever 
 contended for it. Having passed the 
 other house, the bill came up to the Sen- 
 ate, and was here considered and debat-ed 
 in April, 182i. The honorable member 
 from South Carolina was a member of 
 the Senate at that time. "\Miile the bill 
 was under consideration here, a motion 
 was made to add the following proviso: 
 " Provided, That nothing herein con- 
 tained shall be construed to affirm or 
 admit a power in Congress, on their own 
 authoritv. to make roads or canals within 
 
 any of the States of the Union." The 
 yeas and nays were taken on this proviso, 
 and the honorable member voted in the 
 negative ! The proviso failed. 
 
 A motion was then made to add 
 this proviso, viz.: '^'^ Provided, That the 
 faith of the United States is hereby 
 pledged, that no money shall ever be ex- 
 pended for roads or canals, except it 
 shall be among the several States, and 
 in the same proportion as direct taxes 
 are laid and assessed by the provisions 
 of the Constitution." The honorable 
 member voted arjainst thui proviso also, 
 and it failed. The bill was then put on 
 its passage, and the honorable member 
 voted for it, and it passed, and became 
 a law. 
 
 Now, it strikes me. Sir, that there la 
 no maintaining these votes, but upon 
 the power of internal improvement, in 
 its broadest sense. In truth, these bills 
 for surveys and estimates have always 
 been considered as test questions; they 
 show who is for and who against internal 
 improvement. This law itself went the 
 whole length, and assumed the full and 
 complete power. The gentleman's votes 
 sustained that power, in every form in 
 which the various propositions to amend 
 presented it. He went for the entire 
 and unrestrained autliority, without con- 
 sulting the States, and without agi-eeing 
 to any proportionate distribution. And 
 now suffer me to remind you, Mr. Pres- 
 ident, that it is this very same power, 
 thus sanctioned, in every form, by the 
 gentleman's own opinion, which is so 
 plain and manifest a usurpation, that 
 the State of South Carolina is supposed 
 to be justified in refusing submission to 
 any laws carrying the power into effect. 
 Truly, Sir, is not this a little too hard ? 
 May we not crave some mercy, under 
 favor and protection of the gentleman's 
 own authority ? Admitting that a road, 
 or a canal, must be wTitten down flat 
 usurpation as was ever committed, may 
 we find no mitigation in our respect for 
 his place, and hia vote, as one that 
 knows the law ? 
 
 Tlie tariff, which South Carolina had 
 an efficient hand in establishing, in 1816, 
 and this asserted power of internal im.- 
 
246 
 
 THE TiEPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 proveraent, advanced bj her in the same 
 year, and, as we have seen, approved 
 and sanctioned by her Representatives in 
 1824, — these two measures are the great 
 grounds on which she is now thought to 
 be justified in breaking up the Union, if 
 she sees fit to break it up ! 
 
 I may now safely say, I think, that 
 we have had the authority of leading and 
 distin^ished gentlemen from South 
 Carolina in support of the doctrine of 
 internal improvement. I repeat, that, 
 up to 1824, I for one followed South 
 Carolina; but when that star, in its as- 
 cension, veered off in an unexpected di- 
 rection, I relied on its light no longer. 
 
 Here the Vice-President said, " Does the 
 chair understand the gentleman from Mas- 
 sachusetts to say that the person now oc- 
 cupying the chair of the Senate has changed 
 his opinions on tlie subject of internal im- 
 provements ? " 
 
 From nothing ever said to me. Sir, 
 have I had reason to know of any change 
 in the opinions of the person filling the 
 chair of the Senate. If such change has 
 taken place, I regret it. I speak gener- 
 ally of the State of South Carolina. In- 
 dividuals we know there are who hold 
 opinions favorable to the power. Au 
 application for its exercise, in behalf of 
 a public work in South Carolina itself, 
 is now pending, I believe, in the other 
 house, presented by members from that 
 State. 
 
 I have thus, Sir, perhaps not without 
 some tediousness of detail, shown, if I 
 am in error on the subject of internal 
 improvement, how, and in what com- 
 pany, I fell into that error. If I am 
 wrong, it is apparent wlio misled me. 
 
 I go to other remarks of the honor- 
 able member; and I have to conijilain 
 of an oitire misapprehension of wliat I 
 said on the subject of the national debt, 
 though I can hardly perceive how any 
 one could misunderstand me. What I 
 said was, not that I wished to put off the 
 pa}Tnent of the debt, but, on the con- 
 trary, that I had always voted for every 
 measure for its reduction, as uniformly 
 as the gentleman himself. He seems to 
 claim the exclusive merit of a disposi- 
 
 tion to reduce the public charge. I do 
 not allow it to him. As a debt. I was, 
 I am for paying it. because it is a charge 
 on our finances, and on the industry of 
 the country. But I observed, that I 
 thought I perceived a morbid fervor on 
 that subject, an excessive anxietA- to pay 
 off the debt, not so much because it is a 
 debt simply, as because, while it lasts, it 
 furnishes one objection to disunion. It 
 is, while it continues, a tie of common 
 interest. I did not impute such motives 
 to the honorable member himself, but 
 that there is such a feeling in existence 
 I have not a particle of doubt. The 
 most I said was, that, if one effect of the 
 debt was to strengthen our Union, that 
 effect itself was not regretted by me, 
 however much others might regret it. 
 The gentleman has not seen how to re- 
 ply to this, otherwise than by supposing 
 me to have advanced the doctrine that 
 a national debt is a national blessina:. 
 Others, I must hope, will find much less 
 difficulty in understanding me. I dis- 
 tinctly and pointedly cautioned the hon- 
 orable member not to understand me as 
 expressing an o2>inion favorable to the 
 continuance of the debt. I repeated 
 this caution, and repeated it more than 
 once ; but it was thrown away. 
 
 On yet another point, I was still more 
 unaccountably misunderstood. The gen- 
 tleman had harangued against " consoli- 
 dation." I told him, in reply, that there 
 was one kind of consolidation to which 
 I was attached, and that was the con- 
 solidation of our Union ; that this was 
 precisely that consolidation to which I 
 feared others were not attached, and 
 that such consolidation was the very 
 end of the Constitution, tlie leading 
 object, as they had informed us them- 
 selves, which its framers had kej t ic 
 view. I turned to their communica- 
 tion, ^ and read their very words, "the 
 consolidation of tlie Union," and ex- 
 piessed my devotion to this sort of con- 
 solidation. I said, in terms, that I 
 wished not in the slightest degree to 
 augment the powers of this government; 
 
 1 The letter of tlie Federal Convent! )n to the 
 Congress of the Cont'ederaiion transmit dug the 
 plan of the Coustitutioa. 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 247 
 
 that my object was to preserve, not to 
 enlarge; and that by consolidating the 
 Union I understood no more than the 
 strengthening of the Union, and per- 
 petuating it. Having been thus ex- 
 plicit, having thus read from the printed 
 book tlie precise words which I adopted, 
 as expressing my own sentiments, it 
 passes compreliension liow any man 
 could understand me as contending for 
 an extension of the powers of the gov- 
 ernment, or for consolidation in that 
 odious sense in which it means an ac- 
 cumulation, in the federal government, 
 of the powers properly belonging to the 
 States. 
 
 I repeat, Sir, that, in adopting the 
 sentiment of the framers of the Consti- 
 tution, I read their language audibly, 
 and word for word; and I pointed out 
 the distinction, just as fully as I have 
 now done, between the consolidation of 
 the Union and that other ol)noxious con- 
 solidation which I disclaimed. And yet 
 the honorable member misunderstood 
 me. The gentleman had said that he 
 wished for no fixed revenue, — not a 
 shilling. If by a word he could convert 
 the Capitol into gold, he would not do 
 it. Why all this fear of revenue? Why, 
 Sir, because, as the gentleman told us, 
 it tends to consolidation. Now this can 
 mean neither more nor less than that a 
 common revenue is a common interest, 
 and that all common interests tend to 
 preserve the union of the States. I con- 
 fess I like that tendency; if the gentle- 
 man dislikes it, he is right in deprecat- 
 ing a shilling of fixed revenue. So 
 nuich. Sir, for consolidation. 
 
 As well as I recollect the course of his 
 remarks, the honorable gentleman next 
 recurred to the subject of the tariff. 
 He did not doubt the word must be of 
 unpleasant sound to me, and proceeded, 
 with an effort neither new nor attended 
 with new success, to involve me and my 
 votes in inconsistency and contradiction. 
 I am happy the honorable gentleman 
 has furnished me an opportunity of a 
 timely remark or two on that subject. 
 I was glad he approached it, for it is 
 a question 1 enter upon without fear 
 from anvbodv. The strenuous toil of the 
 
 gentleman has been to rai.se an incon- 
 sistency between my dissent to the tariff 
 in bSi-t, and my vote in 1828. It is 
 labor lost. He pays undeserved com- 
 pliment to my speech in 1824; but this 
 is to raise me high, that my fall, as he 
 would have it, in 1828, may be more 
 signal. Sir, there was no fall. Be- 
 tween the ground I stood on in 1824 
 and that I took in 1828, there was not 
 only no precipice, but no declivity. It 
 was a change of position to meet new 
 circumstances, but on the same level. 
 A plain tale explains the whole matter. 
 In 1816 I had not acquiesced in the 
 tariff, then supported by South Caro- 
 lina. To some parts of it, e.specially, I 
 felt and expiessed great repugnance. I 
 held the same opinions in 1820, at the 
 meeting in Faneuil Hall, to which the 
 gentleman has alluded. I said then, 
 and say now, that, as an original ques- 
 tion, the authority of Congress to ex- 
 ercise the revenue power, with direct 
 reference to the protection of manufac- 
 tures, is a questionable authority, far 
 more questionable, in my judgment, 
 than the power of internal improve- 
 ments. I must confess. Sir, that in one 
 respect some impression has been made 
 on my opinions lately. Mr. Madison's 
 publication has put the power in a very 
 strong light. He has placed it, I must 
 acknowledge, upon grounds of construc- 
 tion and argument which seem impreg- 
 nable. But even if the power were 
 doubtful, on the face of the Constitu- 
 tiou itself, it had been assumed and 
 asserted in the first revenue law ever 
 pas.sed inider that same Constitution 
 and on this ground, as a matter settled 
 by contemporaneous practice, I had 
 refrained from expressing the opinion 
 that the tariff laws transcended consti- 
 tutional limits, as the gentleman sup- 
 poses. What I did say at Faneuil Hall, 
 as far as I now remember, was, that 
 this was originally matter of doubtful 
 construction. The gentleman himself, 
 I suppose, thinks there is no doubt 
 about it, and that the laws are plainly 
 against the Constitution. Mr. Madi- 
 son's letters, already referred to, con- 
 tain, in my judgment, by far the most 
 
248 
 
 THE KEPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 able exposition extant of this part of i 
 the Constitution, lie has satisfied me, 
 BO far as the practice of the government 
 had left it an open question. 
 
 With a great majority of the Repre- 
 sentatives of Massachusetts, I voted 
 against the tariff of 182-i. My reasons 
 were then given, and I will not now re- 
 peat them. But, notwithstanding our 
 dissent, the great States of New York, 
 Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky went 
 for the bill, in almost unbroken column, 
 and it passed. Congress and the Presi- 
 dent sanctioned it, and it became the 
 law of the land. What. then, were we 
 to do? Our only option was. either to 
 fall in with this settled course of public 
 pohcv. and accommodate ourselve.s to 
 it as well as we could, or to embrace the 
 South Carolina doctrine, and talk of 
 nullifying the statute, by State interfer- 
 ence. 
 
 This last alternative did not suit our 
 principles, and of course we adopted the 
 former. In 1827, the subject came again 
 before Congress, on a proposition to 
 afford some relief to the branch of wool 
 and woollens. We looked upon the sys- 
 tem of protection as being fixed and 
 settled. The law of 182i remained. It 
 had gone into full operation, and, in re- 
 gard to some objects intended by it, per- 
 haps most of them, had produced all its 
 expecteii effects. No man proposed to 
 repeal it; no man attempted to renew 
 the general contest on its principle. 
 But, owing to subsequent and unfore- 
 seen occurrences, the benefit intended 
 by it to wool and woollen fabrics had 
 not been realized. Events not known 
 here when the law passed had taken 
 place, which defeated its object in that 
 particular respect. A measure w\as ac- 
 cord'ugly brought forward to meet this 
 ]u-eciso deficiency, to remedy this par- 
 ticular defect. It was limited to wool 
 and woollens. Was ever any thing more 
 reasonable? If the policy of the tariff 
 laws had become established in princi- 
 ple, as the permanent policy of the gov- 
 ernment, should they not be revised and 
 amended, and made equal, like other 
 laws, as exigencies should arise, or jus- 
 tice require? Because we had doubted 
 
 about adopting the system, wre we to 
 refuse to cure its manifest detects, after 
 it had been adopted, and when no one 
 attempted its repeal? And this. Sir, is 
 the incon.sistency so much bruitpd. I 
 had voted against the tariff of 1824, but 
 it passed; and in 1827 and 1828 I voted 
 to amend it, in a point essential to the 
 interest of my constituents. Where ia 
 the inconsistency? Could I do other- 
 wise? Sir, does political consistency 
 consist in always giving negative votes* 
 Does it require of a public man to re- 
 fuse to concur in amending laws, be- 
 cause thev passed against his consent? 
 Having voted against the tariff origi- 
 nally, does consistency demand that I 
 should do all in my [X)wer to maintain 
 an unequal tariff", burdensome to my 
 own constituents in many respects, fa- 
 vorable in none? To consistency of that 
 sort, I lay no claim. And there is an- 
 other sort to wiiich I lay as little, and 
 that is, a kind of consistency by which 
 persons feel themselves as much bound 
 to oppose a proposition after it has be- 
 come a law of the land as before. 
 
 The bill of 1827, limited, as I have 
 said, to the single object in which the 
 tariff of 1824: had manifestly failed in 
 its effect, passed the House of Kejire- 
 sentatives, but was lost here. We had 
 then the act of 1828. I need not recur 
 to the history of a measure so re- 
 cent. Its enemies spiced it with what- 
 soever they thought would render it dis- 
 tasteful; its friends took it, drugged 
 as it was. Vast amounts of property, 
 many millions, had been invested in 
 manufactures, under the inducements of 
 the act of 1824. Events called loudly, as 
 I thought, for further regulation to secure 
 the degree of j^rotection intended by that 
 act. I was disposed to vote for such 
 regulation, and desired nothing more; 
 but certainly was not to be bantered out 
 of my purpose by a threatened augmen- 
 tation of duty on molasses, put into the 
 bill for the avowed purpose of making 
 it obnoxious. The vote may have been 
 right or wrong, wise or unwise; but it 
 is little less than absurd to allege against 
 it an inconsistency with opposition to 
 the foi nier law. 
 
THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 
 
 249 
 
 Sir. as to the general subject of the 
 taritl, I liave little now to say. Another 
 opportunity may be presented. I re- 
 marked the other (hiy, that tliis policy 
 did not begin with us in New I^igland; 
 and yet, Sir, New England is charged 
 with vehemence as being favorable, or 
 charged with equal vehemence as being 
 unfavorable, to the tariff policy, just as 
 best suits the time, place, and occasion 
 for making some charge against her. 
 The credulity of the public has been put 
 to its extreme capacity of false impres- 
 Bion relative to her conduct in this par- 
 ticular. Through all the South, during 
 tlie late contest, it was New England 
 policy and a New England administra- 
 tion that were afflicting the country with 
 a tariff beyond all endurance ; while on 
 the other side of the Alleghanies even 
 the act of 1828 itself, the very subli- 
 mated essence of oppression, according to 
 Southern opinions, was pronounced to be 
 one of those blessings for which the West 
 was indebted to the " generous South." 
 "With large investments in manufac- 
 turing establishments, and many and 
 various interests connected with and de- 
 pendent on them, it is not to be expected 
 that New England, any more than other 
 portions of the country, will now con- 
 sent to any measure destructive or highly 
 dangerous. The duty of the govern- 
 ment, at the present moment, would 
 seem to be to preserve, not to destroy; 
 to maintain the position which it has as- 
 sumed; and, for one, I shall feel it an 
 indispensable obligation to hold it steady, 
 as far as in my power, to that degree of 
 pi-otection which it has undertaken to 
 bestow. No more of the tariff. 
 
 Professing to be provoked by what he 
 chose to consider a charge made by me 
 against South Carolina, the honorable 
 member, Mr. President, has taken up 
 a new crusade against New England. 
 Leaving altogether the subject of the 
 public lands, in which his success, per- 
 haps, had been neither distinguished nor 
 satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the 
 topic of the tariff, he sallied forth in a 
 general assault on the opinions, politics, 
 atui parties of New England, as they 
 have been exhibited in the last thirty 
 
 years. This is natiu'al. The "narrow 
 policy " of the public lands had proved 
 a legal settlement in South Carolina, and 
 was not to l)e removed. The " accursed 
 policy " of the tariff, also, had estab- 
 lished the fact of its birth and parentage 
 in the same State. No wonder, tliere- 
 fore, the gentleman wished to cany the 
 war, as he expressed it, into the enemy's 
 country. Prudently willing to quit lliese 
 subjects, he was, doubtless, desirous of 
 fastening on others, which could not be 
 transferred south of Mason and Dixon'." 
 line. The politics of New England be- 
 came his theme; and it was in this part 
 of his speech, I think, that he menaced 
 me with such sore discomfiture. Dis- 
 comfiture! Why, Sir, when he attacks 
 any thing which I maintain, and over- 
 throws it, when he turns the right or 
 left of any position which I take up, 
 when he drives me from any ground I 
 choose to occupy, he may then talk of 
 discomfiture, but not till that distant 
 day. What has he done ? Has he main- 
 tained his own charges ? Has he proved 
 what he alleged ? Has he sustained him- 
 self in his attack on the government, 
 and on the history of the North, in the 
 matter of the public lands? Has he dis- 
 proved a fact, refuted a proposition, 
 weakened an argument, maintained by 
 me ? Has he come within beat of drum 
 of any position of mine ? O, no; but he 
 has "carried the war into the enemy's 
 country " ! Carried the war into the ene- 
 my's country ! Yes, Sir, and what sort of 
 a war has he made of it ? Why, Sir, he 
 has stretchetl a drag-net over the whole 
 surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet 
 sermons, frothy paragi'aphs, and fuming 
 popular addresses, — over whatever the 
 pulpit in its moments of alarm, the 
 press in its heats, and parties in their 
 extravagance, have severally thrown off 
 in times of general excitement and vio- 
 lence. He has thus swept together a 
 mass of such things as, but that they are 
 now old and cold, the public heal^Ji 
 would have required him rather to leave 
 in their state of dispersion. For a good 
 long hour or two, we had the unbroken 
 pleasure of listening to the honorable 
 member, while he recited with his usual 
 
250 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYXE. 
 
 gfrace and spirit, and with evident high 
 gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, 
 and all the et cceleras of the political 
 press, such as warm heads produce in 
 warm times; and such as it would be 
 "discomfiture" indeed for any one, 
 whose taste did not delight in that sort 
 of reading, to be obliged to peruse. This 
 is his war. This it is to carry war into 
 the enemy's country. It is in an inva- 
 sion of this sort, that he flatters himself 
 with the expectation of gaining laurels 
 fit to adorn a Senator's brow! 
 
 Mr. President, I shall not, it will not, 
 r trust, be expected that I should, either 
 now or at any time , separate this farrago 
 into parts, and answer and examine its 
 components. I shall barely bestow upon 
 it all a general remark or two. In the 
 run of forty years. Sir, under this Con- 
 stitution, we have experienced sundry 
 successive violent party contests. Party 
 arose, indeed, with the Constitution it- 
 self, and, in some form or other, has at- 
 tended it through the greater part of its 
 histoiy. AVhether any other constitu- 
 tion than the old Articles of Confedera- 
 tion was desirable, was itself a ques- 
 tion on which parties divided; if a new 
 constitution were framed, what powers 
 should be given to it was another ques- 
 tion ; and when it had been formed, what 
 was. in fact, the just extent of the pow- 
 ers actually conferred was a third. Par- 
 ties, as we know, existed under the first 
 administration, as distinctly marked as 
 those which have manifested themselves 
 at any .subsequent period. The con- 
 te.st immediately preceding the political 
 change in 1801, and that, again, which 
 existed at the commencement of the late 
 war, are other instances of party excite- 
 ment, of something more than usual 
 strength and intensity. In all these 
 conflicts there was, no doubt, nnich of 
 violence on both and all sides. It would 
 be impo-ssible, if one had a fancy for such 
 employment, to adjust the relative quan- 
 tiitn of violence between these contend- 
 ing parties. There was enough in eacli, 
 as must always be expected in popular 
 governments. With a great deal of }x)p- 
 ular and d?corous discussion, there was 
 mingled a great deal, also, of declama- 
 
 tion, virulence, crimination, and abuse. 
 In regard to any party, probably, at one 
 of the leading epochs in the history of 
 parties, enough may be found to make 
 out another inflamed exhibition, not un- 
 like that with which the honorable mem- 
 ber has edified us. For myself, Sir, I 
 shall not rake among the rubbish of by- 
 gone times, to see what I can find, or 
 whether I cannot find something by 
 which I can fix a blot on the escutcheon 
 of any State, any party, or any part of 
 the country. General Washington's ad 
 ministration was steadily and zealously 
 maintained, as we all know, by New 
 England. It was violently opposed else- 
 where. We know in what quarter ho 
 had the most earnest, constant, and per- 
 severing support, in all his great and 
 leading measures. AVe know where his 
 private and personal cliaracter was held 
 in the highest degree of attachment and 
 veneration; and we know, too, where 
 his measures were opposed, his services 
 slighted, and his character vilified. We 
 know, or we might know, if we turned 
 to the journals, who expressed respect, 
 gratitude, and regret, when he retired 
 from the chief magistracy, and who re- 
 fused to express either respect, grat 
 tude, or regret. I shall not open those 
 journals. Publications more abusive or 
 scurrilous never saw the light, than were 
 sent forth against Washington, and all 
 liis leading measures, from presses south 
 of New England. But I shall not look 
 them up. I employ no scavengers, no 
 one is in attendance on me, furnishing 
 such means of retaliation; and if there 
 were, with an ass's load of them, with a 
 bulk as huge as that which the gentle- 
 man himself has produced, I would not 
 touch one of them. I see enough of the 
 violence of our own times, to be no way 
 anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the 
 extravagances of times past. 
 
 Besides, what is all this to the present 
 purpose ? It has nothing to do with the 
 public lands, in regard to which the at- 
 tack wa,s begun; and it has nothing to 
 do with those sentiments and o}>iuion3 
 which, I have thought, tend to disunion 
 and all of which the honorable member 
 seems to have adopted liimself, and un- 
 
THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 
 
 251 
 
 aertaken to defend. New England has, 
 at times, so argues the gentleman, held 
 opinions as dangerous as those which he 
 now holds. Suppose this were so; why 
 should he tlierefore abuse New England ? 
 If he finds himself countenanced by acts 
 of hers, how is it that, while he relies on 
 these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, 
 tlieir authors with reproach? But, Sir, 
 if, in the course of forty years, there 
 have been undue effervescences of party 
 in New England, has the same tiling 
 happened nowhere else ? Party animos- 
 ity and party outrage, not in Xesv Eng- 
 hind, but elsewhere, denounced President 
 Washington, not only as a Federalist, 
 but as a Tory, a British agent, a man 
 who, in his high office, sanctioned cor- 
 ruption. But does the honorable mem- 
 ber suppose, if I had a tender here who 
 should put such an effusion of wicked- 
 ness and folly into my hand, tliat I would 
 stand up and read it against the South ? 
 Parties ran into great heats again in 
 1799 and 1800. What was said, Sir, or 
 rather what was not said, in those years, 
 against .lohn Adams, one of the com- 
 mittee that drafted the Declaration of 
 Independence, and its admitted ablest 
 defender on the floor of Congress ? If 
 the gentleman wishes to increase his 
 stores of party abuse and frothy vio- 
 lence, if he has a determined proclivity 
 to such pursuits, there are treasures of 
 that sort south of the Potomac, much to 
 his taste, yet untouched. I shall not 
 touch them. 
 
 The parties which divided the country 
 at the commencement of the late war 
 were violent. But then there was vio- 
 lence on both sides, and violence in 
 every State. Minorities and majorities 
 were equally violent. There was no 
 more violence against the w^ar in Xew 
 England, than in other States; nor any 
 more appearance of violence, except that, 
 owing to a dense population, greater fa- 
 cility of assembling, and more presses, 
 there may have been more in quantity 
 spoken and printed there than in some 
 other places. In the article of sermons, 
 too, Xew England is somewhat more 
 abundant than South Carolina ; and for 
 that reason the chance of finding here 
 
 and there an exceptionable one may 1)9 
 greater. I hope, too, there are morf 
 good ones. Opposition may have been 
 more formidable in New England, as it 
 embraced a larger portion of the whole 
 population; but it was no more unre- 
 strained in principle, or violent in man- 
 ner. The minorities dealt quite as 
 harshly with their own State govern- 
 ments as the majorities dealt with tha 
 administration here. There were presses 
 on both sides, popular meetings on both 
 sides, ay, and pulpits on both sides also. 
 The gentleman's purveyors have only 
 catered for him ainong the proiluctions 
 of one side. I certainly shall not supply 
 the deficiency by furnishing samples of 
 the other. I leave to him, and to tliem, 
 the whole concern. 
 
 It is enough for me to say, that if, in 
 any part of this their grateful occupa- 
 tion, if, in all their researches, they find 
 any thing in the history of ]\Iassachu- 
 setts, or New England, or in the pro- 
 ceedings of any legislative or other pul:)iic 
 body, disloyal to the Union, speaking 
 slightingly of its value, proposing to break 
 it up, or recommending non-intercourse 
 with neighboring States, on account of 
 difference of political opinion, then. Sir, 
 I give them all up to the honorable gen- 
 tleman's unrestrained rebuke; expect- 
 ing, however, that he will extend his 
 buffetings in like manner to all similar 
 proceedings, wherever else found. 
 
 The gentleman. Sir, has spoken at 
 large of former parties, now no longer 
 in being, by their received appellations, 
 and has imdertaken to instruct us, not 
 only in the knowledge of their principles, 
 but of their respective pedigrees also. 
 He has ascended to their origin, and run 
 out their genealogies. With most ex- 
 emplary modesty, he speaks of the party 
 to which he professes to have himself 
 belonged, as the true Pure, the only 
 honest, patriotic party, derived by regu- 
 lar descent, from father to son, from the 
 time of the virtuous Romans! Spread- 
 ing before us the family tree of political 
 parties, he takes especial care to show 
 himself snugly perched on a popular 
 bough ! He is wakeful to the exi>ediency 
 of adopting such rules of descent iis sliall 
 
252 
 
 THE REPLY TO ^AY^^:. 
 
 bring him in, to the exclusion of others, 
 as an heir to the inheritance of all pub- 
 lic virtue, and all true political principle. 
 His party and his opinions are sure to be 
 orthodox ; heterodoxj' is confined to his 
 ojiponents. He spoke, Sir, of the Fed- 
 eralists, and I thought I saw some eyes 
 begin to open and stare a little, when he 
 ventured on that ground. I expected he 
 would di aw his sketches rather lightly, 
 when he looked on the circle round 
 him, and especially if he should cast his 
 thoughts to the high places out of the 
 Senate. Xevertheless, he went back to 
 Rome, ad annum urbi<! conditce, and 
 found the fathers of the Federalists in 
 the primeval aristocrats of that re- 
 nowned city! He traced the flow of 
 Federal blood down through successive 
 ages and centuries, till he brought it 
 uito the veins of the American Tories, 
 of whom, by the way, there ■were twenty 
 in the Carolinas for one in Massachu- 
 eetts. From the Tories he followed it 
 to the Federalists; and, as the Federal 
 party was broken up, and there was no 
 possibility of transmitting it further on 
 this side the Atlantic, he seems to have 
 discovered that it has gone off collater- 
 ally, though against all the canons of 
 descent, into the Ultras of France, and 
 finally become extinguished, like ex- 
 ploded gas, among the adherents of 
 Don Miguel! This, Sir, is an abstract 
 of the gentleman's history of Federal- 
 ism. I am not about to controvert it. 
 It is not, at present, worth the pains of 
 refutation; because. Sir, if at this day 
 any one feels the sin of Federalism lying 
 heavily on his conscience, he can easily 
 [irocure remission. He may even obtain 
 an indulgence, if he be desirous of re- 
 peating tlie same transgression. It is an 
 affair of no diiliculty to get into this 
 same right line of patriotic descent. A 
 man now-a-days is at liberty to choose 
 liis political parentage. He may elect 
 liis own father. Federalist or not, he 
 may, if he choose, claim to belong to 
 the favored .stock, and his claim will be 
 allowed. He may carry back his jire- 
 tensions just as far as the honorable 
 gentleman himself; nay, he may make 
 Liniself out the }>onorable gentleman's 
 
 cousin, and prove, satisfactorily, tnat he 
 is descended from the same political 
 great-grandfather. All this is allow- 
 able. We all know a process. Sir, by 
 which the whole Essex Junto could, in 
 one hour, be all washed white from their 
 ancient Federalism, and come ont, every 
 one of them, original Democrats, dyed 
 in the wool ! Some of them have actually 
 undergone the operation, and they say it 
 is quite easy. The only inconvenience 
 it occasions, as they tell us, is a slight 
 tendency of the blood to the face, a soft 
 suffusion, which, however, is very tran- 
 sient, since nothing is said by those whom 
 they join calculated to deepen tlie red on 
 the cheek, but a prudent silence is ob- 
 served in regard to all the past. Indeed, 
 Sir, some smiles of approbation have 
 been bestowed, and some crumbs of 
 comfort have fallen, not a thousand 
 miles from the door of the Hartford 
 Convention itself. And if the author 
 of the Ordinance of 1787 possessed the 
 other requisite qualifications, there is 
 no knowing, notwithstanding his Feder- 
 alism, to what heights of favor he might 
 not yet attain. 
 
 ISIr. President, in carrying his warfare, 
 such as it is, into Xew England, the 
 honorable gentleman all along professes 
 to be acting on the defensive. He 
 chooses to consider me as having as- 
 sailed South Carolina, and insists that 
 he comes forth only as her champion, 
 and in her defence. Sir, I do not admit 
 that I made any attack whatever on 
 South Carolina. Nothing like it. The 
 honorable member, in his first speech, 
 expressed opinions, in regard to revenue 
 and some otlier topics, which I heard 
 both with pain and with surprise. I 
 told the gentleman I was aware tliat 
 such sentiments were entertained out of 
 the government, but had not expected 
 to find them advanced in it; that I knew 
 there were persons in the South who 
 speak of our Union with indifference or 
 doubt, taking pains to magnify its evils, 
 and to say nothing of its benefits; that 
 the honorable member himself, I wa 
 sure, could never be one of these ; and I 
 regretted the expression of such opinions 
 as he had avowed, because I tliought 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 253 
 
 tluMr obvious tendency was to encourage 
 feelings of disrespect to the Union, and 
 to impair its strength. This, Sir, is the 
 sum and substance of all I said on tlie 
 subject. And this constitutes the attack 
 •which called on the chivalry of the gen- 
 tleman, in his own opinion, to harry us 
 with such a foray among the party pam- 
 phlets and party proceedings of Massa- 
 chusetts ! If he means that I spoke with 
 dissatisfaction or disrespect of tht ebul- 
 litions of individuals in South Carolina, 
 it is true. But if he means that I as- 
 sailed the character of the State, her 
 honor, or patriotism, tliat I reflected on 
 her history or her conduct, he has not 
 the slightest ground for any such as- 
 sumption. I did not even refer, I think, 
 in my obsei-vations, to any collection of 
 individuals. I said nothing of the re- 
 cent conventions. I spoke in the most 
 guanled and careful manner, and only 
 expressed my regret for the publication 
 of opinions, which I presumed the hon- 
 orable member disapproved as nmch as 
 myself. In this, it seems, I was mis- 
 taken. I do not remember that the gen- 
 tleman has disclaimed any sentiment, or 
 any opinion, of a supposed anti-union 
 tendency, which on all or any of the 
 recent occasions has been expressed. 
 The whole drift of his speech has been 
 rather to prove, that, in divers times 
 and manners, sentiments equally liable 
 to my objection have been avowed in 
 New England. And one would suppose 
 that his object, in this reference to Mas- 
 sachusetts, was to find a precedent to 
 justify proceedings in the South, were it 
 not for the reproach and contumely with 
 which he labors, all along, to load these 
 his own chosen precedents. By way of 
 defending South Carolina from what he 
 chooses to think an attack on her, he 
 first quotes the example of Massachu- 
 setts, and then denounces that example 
 in good set tei-ms. This twofold pur- 
 pose, not very consistent, one would 
 think, with itself, was exhibited more 
 than once in the course of his speech. 
 He referred, for instance, to the llai-t- 
 ford Convention. Did he do this for 
 authority, or for a topic of reproach? 
 Ai^parently for both, for he told us that 
 
 he should find no fault with the mere 
 fact of holding such a convention, and 
 considering and discussing such ques- 
 tions as he supposes were then and therpi 
 discussed; but what rendered it obnox- 
 ious was its being held at the time, and 
 under the circumstances of the country 
 then existing. We were in a war, he 
 said, and the country needed all Dur aid • 
 the hand of government required to be 
 .strengthened, not weakened; and pa- 
 triotism should have postponed such 
 proceedings to another day. The thing 
 itself, then, is a precedent; the time and 
 manner of it only, a subject of censure. 
 Now, Sir, I go much further, on this 
 point, than the honorable member. 
 Supposing, as the gentleman seems to 
 do, that the Hartford Convention assem- 
 bled for any such purpose as breaking 
 up the Union, becaiuse they thought un- 
 constitutional laws had been passed, or 
 to consult on that subject, or to calculate 
 the value of the Union; supposing this 
 to be theii- purpose, or any part of it, 
 then I say the meeting itself was dis- 
 loyal, and was obnoxious to censure, 
 whether held in time of peace or time 
 of war, or under whatever circum- 
 stances. The material question is the 
 object. Is dissolution the object ? If it 
 be, external circumstances may make it 
 a more or less aggravated case, but 
 cannot affect the principle. I do not 
 hold, therefore. Sir, that the Hartford 
 Convention was pardonable, even to the 
 extent of the gentleman's admission, if 
 its objects were really such as have 
 been imputed to it. Sir, there nevei 
 was a time, under any degree of excite- 
 ment, in which the Hartford Conven- 
 tion, or any other convention, could 
 have maintained itseK one moment in 
 New England, if assembled for any 
 such purpose as the gentleman says 
 would have been an allowable purpose. 
 To hold conventions to decide constitu- 
 tional law! To try the binding validity 
 of statutes by votes in a conveuiiou! 
 Sir, the Hartford Convention, I pre- 
 sume, would not desire that the honor- 
 able gentleman should be their defendei 
 or advocate, if he puts their ca.se upon 
 such untenable and extravagant gi'omida. 
 
2o4 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 Then, Sir, the gentleman has no 
 fault to find with these recently promul- 
 gated South Carolina opinions. And 
 certainly he need have none; for his 
 o^\'n sentiments, as now advanced, and 
 advanced on reflection, as far as I have 
 been able to comprehend them, go the 
 lull length of all these opinions. I pro- 
 pose, Sir, to say something on these, 
 and to consider how far they are just 
 and constitutional. Before doing that, 
 however, let, me observe that the eulo- 
 gium pronounced by the honorable 
 gentleman on the character of the State 
 of South Carolina, for her Revolu- 
 tionary and other merits, meets my 
 hearty concurrence. I shall not ac- 
 knowledge that the honorable member 
 goes before me in regard for whatever 
 of distinguished talent, or distuiguished 
 character, South Carolina has produced. 
 I claim part of the honor, I partake in 
 the pride, of her great names. I claim 
 them for countrymen, one and all, the 
 Laurenses, the Rutledges, the Pinckneys, 
 tlie Sumpters, the Marions, Americans 
 all, whose fame is no more to be 
 hemmed in by State lines, than their 
 talents and patriotism were capable of 
 being circumscribed within the same 
 narrow limits. In their day and gen- 
 eration, they served and honored the 
 country, and the whole countrj'; and 
 their renown is of the treasm-es of the 
 ■whole countrj'. II im whose honored 
 name the gentleman himself bears, — 
 does he esteem me less capable of gi-ati- 
 tude for his patriotism, or sympathy for 
 his sufferings, than if his eyes had first 
 opened upon the light of Massachusetts, 
 instead of South Carolina? Sir, does 
 be suppose it in his power to exliibit a 
 Carolina name so bright as to produce 
 envy in my bosom? No, Sir, increased 
 gratification and delight, rather. I 
 thank God, that, if I am gifted with 
 little of the spirit which is able to raise 
 mortals to the skies, I have yet none, as 
 I trust, of that other spirit, which would 
 drag angels down. When I shall be 
 found. Sir, in my place here in the Senate, 
 or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, 
 because it happens to spring up beyond 
 the little limits of my own State or 
 
 neighborhood; when I refuse, for any 
 such cause or for any cause, tne homage 
 due to American talent, to elevated patri- 
 otism, to sincere devotion to liberty and 
 the country ; or, if I see an uncommon 
 endo^NTiient of Heaven, if I see extraor- 
 dinary capacity and ^drtue, in any son of 
 the South, and if, moved by local preju- 
 dice or gangrened by State jealousy, 
 I get up here to abate the tithe of a hair 
 from his just character and just fame, 
 may my tongue cleave to the roof of 
 my mouth 1 
 
 Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollec- 
 tions; let me indulge in refreshing re- 
 membrance of the past; let me remind 
 you that, in early times, no States cher- 
 ished greater harmony, both of prin- 
 ciple and feeling, than Massachusetts 
 and South Carolina. "Would to God 
 that harmony might again return! 
 Shoulder to shoulder they went tlirough 
 the Revolution, hand in hand they 
 stood round the administration of 
 Washington, and felt his own great 
 arm lean on them for support. Un- 
 kind feeling, if it exist, alienation, and 
 distrust are the growth, unnatmal to 
 such soils, of false principles since 
 so-\vu. They are weeds, the seeds of 
 which that same great arm never 
 scattered. 
 
 Mr. President, I shall enter on no en- 
 comium upon Massachusetts; she needs 
 none. There she is. Behold her, and 
 judge for yourselves. There is her his- 
 tory; the wcrld knows it by heart. The 
 past, at least, is secure. There is Bos- 
 ton, and Concord, and Lexington, and 
 Bunker Hill; and there they will re- 
 main for ever. The bones of her sons, 
 falling in the great struggle for Inde- 
 pendence, now lie mingled with the soil 
 of every State from New England to 
 Georgia; and there they wUl lie for ever. 
 And, Sir, wliere American Liberty raised 
 its first voice, and where its youth was 
 nurtured and sustained, there it still 
 lives, in the strength of its manhood and 
 full of its original spirit. If discord and 
 disunion shall wound it, if party strife 
 and blind ambition shall hawk at and 
 tear it, if folly and madness, if uneasi- 
 ness under salutary and necessary re* 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 255 
 
 Btraiiit, shall succeed in separating it 
 from that Union, by which alone its 
 existence is made sure, it will stand, in 
 the end, by the side of that cradle in 
 which its infancy was rocked; it will 
 stietch forth its arm with whatever of 
 vigor it may still retain over the friends 
 who gather round it; and it will fall at 
 last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest 
 monuments of its own glory, and on the 
 very sjKjt of its origin. 
 
 There yet remains to be performed, 
 Mr. President, by far the most grave 
 and important duty, which I feel to be 
 devolved on me by this occasion. It is 
 to state, and to defend, what I conceive 
 to be the true principles of the Constitu- 
 tion under which we are here assembled. 
 I might well have desired that so weighty 
 a task should have fallen into other and 
 abler hands. I could have wished that 
 it should have been executed by those 
 whose character and experience give 
 weight and influence to their opinions, 
 Buch as cannot possibly belong to mine. 
 But, Sir, I have met the occasion, not 
 sought it; and I shall proceed to state 
 my own sentiments, without challenging 
 for them any particular regard, with 
 studied plainness, and as much precision 
 as possible. 
 
 I understand the honorable gentleman 
 from South Carolina to maintain, that 
 it is a right of the State legislatures to 
 interfere, whenever, in their judgment, 
 this government transcends its constitu- 
 tional limits, and to arrest the operation 
 of its laws. 
 
 I understand him to maintain this 
 right, as a right existing under the Con- 
 stitution, not as a right to overthrow it 
 on the ground of extreme necessity, such 
 as would justify violent revolution. 
 
 I understand him to maintain an au- 
 thority, on the part of the States, thus 
 to interfere, for the purpose of correct- 
 ing the exercise of power by the general 
 government, of checking it, and of com- 
 pelling it to conform to their opinion of 
 the extent of its powers. 
 
 I understand him to maintain, that 
 the ultimate power of judging of the 
 constitut'onal extent of its :wn author- 
 
 ity is not lodged exclusively in the gen- 
 eral government, or any branch (rf it; 
 but that, on the contrary, the States 
 may lawfully decide for themselves, and 
 each State for itself, whether, in a givea 
 case, the act of the general government 
 transcends its jx)\ver. 
 
 I understand him to insist, that, if tb j 
 exigency of the case, in the opinion of 
 any State government, require it, iuch 
 State government may, by its own sov- 
 ereign authority, annul an act of the 
 general government which it deems 
 plainly and palpably unconstitutional. 
 
 This is the sum of what 1 understand 
 from him to be the South Carolina doc- 
 trine, and the doctrine which he main- 
 tains. I propose to consider it, and 
 compare it with the Constitution. Al- 
 low me to say, as a preliminary i-emark, 
 that I call this the South Carolina doc- 
 trine only because the gentleman him- 
 self has so denominated it. I do not 
 feel at liberty to say that South Caro- 
 lina, as a State, has ever advanced these 
 sentiments. I hope she has not, and 
 never may. That a great majority of 
 her people are opposed to the tariff laws, 
 is doubtless true. That a majority, 
 somewhat less than that just mentioned, 
 conscientiously believe these laws un- 
 constitutional, may probably also be 
 true. But that any majority holds to 
 the right of direct State interference at 
 State discretion, the right of nullifying 
 acts of Congi-ess by acts of State legisla- 
 tion, is more than I know, and what I 
 shall be slow to believe. 
 
 That there are individuals besides the 
 honorable gentleman who do maintain 
 these opinions, is quite certain. I recol- 
 lect the recent expression of a sentiment, 
 which circumstances attending its utter- 
 ance and publication justify us in sup- 
 posing was not unpremeditated. " The 
 sovereignty of the State, — never to be 
 controlled, construed, or decided on, but 
 by her own feelings of honorable jus- 
 tice." 
 
 Mr. Hayne here rose and said, that, for 
 the purpose of being clearly understood, he 
 would state that his proposition was in the 
 words of the Virginia resolution, as fot 
 lows : — 
 
1256 
 
 THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 
 
 " That tliis assembly doth explicitly and 
 peremptorily declare, that it views the pow- 
 ers of the federal government as resulting 
 from the compact to whicli the States are 
 parties, as limited by the plain sense and 
 intention of the instrument constituting 
 that compact, as no farther valid than they 
 are authorized by the grants enumerated in 
 i'>at compact ; and that, in case of a dclib- 
 er..te, palpable, and dangerous exercise of 
 othfc.' powers not granted by the said com- 
 pact, the States who are parties thereto 
 have tiie right, and are in duty bound, to 
 interpose, for arresting tlie progress of the 
 evil, and for maintaining within their re- 
 spective lim fs the authorities, rights, and 
 liberties appeitaining to them." 
 
 Mr. Webster resumed : — 
 
 I am quite aware, Mr. Pre.sident, of 
 the existence of the re.solution vihich the 
 gentleman read, and has now repeated, 
 and that he relies on it as his authority. 
 I know the source, too, from which it is 
 understood to have proceeded. I need 
 not say that I have much respect for the 
 constitutional opinions of Mr. Madison; 
 they would weigh greatly with nie al- 
 ways. But before the authoiity of his 
 opinion be vouched for the gentleman's 
 proposition, it will be proper to consider 
 what is the fair interpretation of that 
 resolution, to which Mr. Madison is un- 
 derstood to have given his sanction. As 
 the gentleman construes it, it is an au- 
 thority for him. Possibly he may not 
 have adopted the right construction. 
 1'hat resolution declares, that, in the 
 case of the dangerous exercise of powers 
 not granted Jnj the general gocermnent, the 
 States may interpose to arrest the progress 
 of the evil. But how interpose, and 
 what does this declaration purport? 
 Does it mean no more than that there 
 may be extreme ca.ses, in which the peo- 
 ple, in any mode of a.ssembling, may 
 resist usurpation, and relieve themselves 
 from a tyrannical government? No one 
 will deny this. Such resistance is not 
 only acknowledged to be just in Amer- 
 ica, but in England also Black.stone 
 admits as nmch, in the theory, and 
 practice, too, of the English constitu- 
 tion. We, Sir, who opjiose the Carolina 
 doctrine, do not deny that the people 
 may, if they choose, throw off any gov- 
 
 ernment when it becomes oppressive and 
 intolerable, and erect a better in its 
 stead. We all know that civil institu- 
 tions are established for the public bene- 
 fit, and that when they cease to answer 
 the ends of their existence they may be 
 changed. But I do not understand the 
 doctrine now contended for to be that, 
 which, for the sake of distinction, we 
 may call the right of revolution. I un- 
 derstand the gentleman to maintain, 
 that, without revolution, without civil 
 commotion, without rebellion, a remedy 
 for supposed abuse and transgression of 
 the powers of the general government 
 lies in a direct appeal to the interference 
 of the State governments. 
 
 Mr Hayne here rose and said: He did 
 not contend for the mere right of revo- 
 lution, bat for tlic rigiit of constitutional 
 resistance. What he maintained was, that 
 in case of a plain, palpable violation of the 
 Constitution by the general government, a 
 State may interpose ; and that this inter- 
 position is constitutional. 
 
 Mr. Webster resumed : — 
 
 So, Sir. I understood the gentleman, 
 and am happy to find that I did not mis- 
 understand him. What he contends for 
 is, that it is con.stitutional to interrupt 
 the administration of the Con.stitution 
 itself, in the hands of tho.^e who are 
 chosen and sworn to administer it, by 
 the direct interference, in form of law, 
 of the States, in virtue of their sovereign 
 capacity. The inherent right in the peo- 
 ple to reform their government I do not 
 deny; and they have another right, and 
 that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, 
 without overturning the government. It 
 is no doctrine of mine that unconstitu- 
 tional laws bind the people. The great 
 question is, Who.se prerogative is it to 
 decide on the constitutionality or uncon- 
 stitutionality of the laws? On that, the 
 main debate hinges. The proposition, 
 that, in case of a supposed violation of 
 the Constitution by Congress, the States 
 have a constitutional right to interfere 
 and annul the law of Congress, is the 
 proposition of the gentleman. I do not 
 admit it. If the gentleman had in- 
 tended no more than to asser* the right 
 of revolution for justifiable cause, he 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 2o7 
 
 would have said only what all agree to. 
 But I cannot conceive that there can be 
 a middle course, between submission to 
 the laws, wlien regularly pronounced 
 constitutional, on the one hand, and 
 open resistance, which is revolution or 
 rebellion, on the other. I say, the right 
 of a State to annul a law of Congress 
 cannot be maintained, but on the ground 
 A the inalienable right of man to resist 
 oppression; that is to say, upon the 
 ground of revolution. I admit that 
 there is an ultimate violent remedy, 
 above the Constitution and in defiance 
 of the Constitution, which may be re- 
 sorted to when a revolution is to be jus- 
 tified. But I do not admit, that, under 
 the Constitution and in conformity with 
 it, there is any mode in which a State 
 government, as a member of the Union, 
 can interfere and stop the progress of 
 the general government, by force of her 
 own laws, under any circumstances what- 
 ever. 
 
 This leads us to inquire into the origin 
 of this government and the source of its 
 power. Whose agent is it? Is it the 
 creature of the State legislatures, or the 
 creature of the people? If the govern- 
 ment of the United States be the agent 
 of the State governments, then they may 
 control it, provided they can agl^e in the 
 manner of controlling it ; if it be the agent 
 of the people, then the people alone can 
 control it, restrain it, modify, or reform 
 it. It is observable enough, that the 
 doctrine for which the honorable gentle- 
 man contends leads him to the necessity 
 of maintaining, not only that this gen- 
 eral government is the creature of the 
 States, but that it is the creature of each 
 of the States severally, so that each may 
 assert the power for itself of determin- 
 ing whether it acts within the limits of 
 its authority. It is the servant of four- 
 aud-twenty masters, of different wills 
 and different purposes, and yet bound to 
 obey all. This absurdity (for it seems 
 no less) arises from a misconception as 
 to the origin of this government and its 
 true character. It is, Sir, the people's 
 Constitution, the people's government, 
 made for the people, made by the people, 
 and answerable to the people. The peo- 
 
 ple of the United States have declared 
 
 that this Constitution shall be the su- 
 preme law. We must either admit the 
 proposition, or dispute their authority. 
 The States are, unquestionably, sover- 
 eign, so far as their sovereignty is not 
 affected by this supreme law. But the 
 State legislatures, as political bodies, 
 however sovereign, are yet not sovereign 
 over the people. So far as the people 
 have given power to the general govern- 
 ment, so far the grant is unquestionably 
 good, and the government holds of the 
 people, and not of the State governments. 
 We are all agents of the same supreme 
 power, the people. The general gov- 
 ernment and the State governments 
 derive their authority from the same 
 source. Neither can, in relation to the 
 other, be called prmiary, though one is 
 definite and restricted, and the other 
 general and residuary. The national 
 government possesses those powers which 
 it can be shown the people have con- 
 ferred on it, and no more. All the rest 
 belongs to tlie State governments, or to 
 the people themselves. So far as the 
 people have restrained State sovereignty, 
 by the expression of their will, in the 
 Constitution of the United States, so 
 far, it must be admitted. State sover- 
 eignty is effectually controlled. I do 
 not contend that it is, or ought to be, 
 controlled farther. The sentiment to 
 which I have referred propounds that 
 State sovereignty is only to be con- 
 trolled by its own "feeling of justice "; 
 that is to say, it is not to be controlled 
 at all, for one who is to follow his own 
 feelings is under no legal control. Now, 
 however men may think this ought to 
 be, the fact is, that the people of the 
 United States have chosen to impose 
 control on State sovereignties. There 
 are those, doubtless, who wish they had 
 been left without restraint ; but the Con- 
 stitution has ordered the matter differ- 
 ently. To make war, for instance, is 
 an exercise of sovereignty; but the Con- 
 stitution declares that no State shall 
 make war. To coin money is another 
 exercise of sovereign power; but no 
 State is at liberty to coin money. Again, 
 the Constitution says that no sovereign 
 
 17 
 
258 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYXE. 
 
 State shall be so sovereign as to make 
 a treaty These prohibitions, it must 
 be confessed, are a control on the State 
 sovereignty of South Carolina, as well 
 as of the other States, which does not 
 arise "from her own feelings of honor- 
 able justice." The opinion referred to, 
 therefore, is in defiance of the plainest 
 provisions of the Constitution. 
 
 There are other proceedings of public 
 l)odies which have already been alluded 
 to, and to which I refer again for the 
 purpose of ascertaining more fully what 
 is the length and breadth of that doc- 
 trine, denominated the Carolina doc- 
 trine, which the honorable member has 
 now stood up on this floor to maintain. 
 In one of them I find it resolved, that 
 " the tariff of 1828, and eveiy other 
 tariff designed to promote one branch 
 of industry at the expense of others, is 
 contraiy to the meaning and intention of 
 the federal compact ; and such a danger- 
 ous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation 
 of power, by a determined majority, 
 wielding the general government beyond 
 the limits of its delegated powers, as 
 calls upon the States which compose the 
 suffering minority, in their sovereign 
 capacity, to exercise the powers which, 
 as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon 
 them, when their compact is violated." 
 
 Observe, Sir, that this resolution 
 holds the tariff of 1828, and every other 
 tariff designed to promote one branch of 
 industry at the expense of another, to 
 be such a dangerous, palpable, and de- 
 liberate usurpation of power, as calls 
 upon the States, in their sovereign ca- 
 pacity, to interfere by their own author- 
 ity. This denunciation, Mr. President, 
 you will please to observe, includes our 
 old tariff of 1816, as well as all others; 
 'because that was established to promote 
 •the interest of the manufacturers of cot- 
 ton, to the manifest and admitted injury 
 of the Calcutta cotton trade. Observe, 
 again, that all the qualifications are here 
 rehearsed and charged upon the tariff, 
 which are necessary to bring the case 
 within the gentleman's proposition. 
 The tariff is a usurpation; it is a dan- 
 gerous usurpation ; it is a palpable usur- 
 pation; it is a deliberate usurpatiou. 
 
 It is such a usurpation, therefore, as calls 
 upon the States to exercise theii right 
 of interference. Here is a case, then, 
 within the gentleman's principles, and 
 all his qualifications of his principles. 
 It is a case for action. The Constitution 
 is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and 
 deliberately violated; and the Slates 
 must interpose their own authority to 
 arrest the law. Let us suppose the 
 State of South Carolina to express tliis 
 same opinion, by the voice of her h-gi*- 
 lature. That would be very imposing; 
 but what then? Is the voice of one 
 State conclusive? It so happens that, 
 at the veiy moment when South Caro- 
 lina resolves that the tariff laws are un- 
 constitutional, Pennsylvania and Ken- 
 tucky resolve exactly the reverse. They 
 hold those laws to be both highly proper 
 and strictly constitutional. And now, 
 Sir, how does the honorable member 
 propose to deal with this case ? How 
 does he relieve us from this difficulty, 
 upon any principle of his? His con- 
 struction gets us into it; how does he 
 propose to get us out? 
 
 In Carolina, the tariff is a palpable, 
 deliberate usurpation; Carolina, there- 
 fore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay 
 the duties. In Pennsylvania, it is both 
 clearly constitutional and highly expe- 
 dient; and there the duties are to be 
 paid. And yet we live under a gov- 
 ernment of uniform laws, and under 
 a Constitution too, which contains an 
 express provision, as it happens, that all 
 duties shall be equal in all the States. 
 Does not this approach absurdity? 
 
 If there be no power to settle such 
 questions, independent of either of the 
 States, is not the whole Union a rope of 
 sand? Are we not thrown back again, 
 precisely, upon the old Confederation ? 
 
 It is too plain to be argued. Four- 
 and-twenty interpreters of constitutional 
 law, each with a power to decide for 
 itself, and none with authority to bind 
 anybody else, and this constitutional 
 law the only bond of their union! 
 What is such a state of things but a 
 mere connection dui'ing pleasure, or, to 
 use the phraseology of the times, duv' 
 uKjfeeVuKj? And that feeling, too, not 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 259 
 
 tfle feeling of the people, who estab- 
 lislied the Constitution, but the feeling 
 of the State governments. 
 
 In another of the South Carolina ad- 
 dresses, having premised that the crisis 
 requires " all the concentrated energy of 
 passion," an attitude of open resistance 
 to the laws of the Union is advised. 
 Open resistance to the laws, then, is the 
 eonstitutional remedy, the conservative 
 power of the State, which the South 
 Carolina doctrines teach for the redress 
 of political evils, real or imaginary. 
 Ai d its authors further say, tliat, ap- 
 pealing with confidence to the Consti- 
 tution itself, to justify their opinions, 
 they cannot consent to try their accuracy 
 by the courts of justice. In one sense, 
 indeed. Sir, this is assuming an atti- 
 tude of open resistance in favor of lib- 
 erty. But what sort of liberty? The 
 liberty of establishing their own opin- 
 ions, in defiance of the opinions of all 
 others; the liberty of judging and of 
 deciding exclusively themselves, in a 
 matter in which others have as much 
 right to judge and decide as they ; the 
 liberty of placing their own opinions 
 above the judgment of all others, above 
 the laws, and above the Constitution. 
 This is their liberty, and this is the fair 
 result of the proposition contended for 
 by the honorable gentleman. Or, it 
 may be more properly said, it is identi- 
 cal with it, rather than a result from it. 
 
 In the same publication we find the 
 following: "Previously to our Revolu- 
 tion, when the arm of oppression was 
 stretched over Xew England, where did 
 our Xorthern brethren meet with a braver 
 sympathy than that which sprung from 
 the bosoms of Carolinians? We had no 
 extortion, no oppression, no collision 
 with the king's ministers, no naviga- 
 tion interests springing up, in envious 
 rivalry of England." 
 
 This seems extraordinary language. 
 South Carolina no collision with the 
 king's ministers in 1775! No extor- 
 tion! Xo oppression! But, Sir, it is 
 also most significant language. Does 
 any man doubt the purpose for which it 
 was penned? Can any one fail to see 
 that it was designed to raise iu the read- I 
 
 er's mind the question, whether, at this 
 time, — that is to say, in 1828,— South 
 Carolina has any collision with the king's 
 ministers, any oppression, or extortion, 
 to fear from England? whether, in 
 short, England is not as naturally the 
 friend of South Carolina as New Eng- 
 land, with her navigation interests 
 springing up iu envious rivalry of Eng- 
 land? 
 
 Is it not strange, Sir, that an intelli- 
 gent man in South Carolina, in 1828, 
 should thus labor to prove that, in 1775, 
 there was no hostility, no cause of war, 
 between South Carolina and England? 
 That she had no occasion, in reference 
 to her own interest, or from a regard to 
 her own welfare, to take up arms in the 
 Revolutionary contest? Can any one 
 account for the expression of such strange 
 sentiments, and their circulation through 
 the State, otherwise than by supposing 
 the object to be what I have akeady in- 
 timated, to raise the question, if they 
 had no '^ collision'^ (mark the expres- 
 sion) with the ministers of King George 
 the Third, in 1775, what collision have 
 they, in 1828, with the ministers of King 
 George the Fourth? What is there now, 
 in the existing state of things, to sepa- 
 rate Carolina from Old, more, or rather, 
 than from New England? 
 
 Resolutions, Sir, have been recently 
 passed by the legislature of South Car- 
 olina. I need not refer to them; they 
 go no farther than the honorable gentle- 
 man himself has gone, and I hope not 
 so far. I content myself, therefore, 
 with debating the matter with him. 
 
 And now. Sir, what I have first to say 
 on this subject is, that at no time, and 
 under no circumstances, has Xew Enjr- 
 land, or any State in Xew England, or 
 any respectable body of persons in New 
 England, or any public man of stand- 
 ing in Xew England, put forth such a 
 doctrine as this Carolina doctrine. 
 
 The gentleman has found no case, he 
 can find none, to support his own opin- 
 ions by Xew England authority. Xew 
 England has studied the Constitution in 
 other schools, and under other teachers. 
 She looks upon it with other regards, 
 and deems more highly and reverently 
 
260 
 
 THE REPLY TO HATNE. 
 
 both of its just authority and its utility 
 and excellence. The history of her legis- 
 lative proceedings may be traced. The 
 ephemeral effusions of temporary' bodies, 
 called together bv the excitement of the 
 occasion, may be hunted up; they have 
 been hunted up. The opinions and 
 votes of her public men, in and out of 
 Congress, may be explored. It will all 
 be in vain. The Carolina doctrine can 
 derive from her neither countenance nor 
 support. She rejects it now ; she always 
 did reject it; and till she loses her senses, 
 she always will reject it. The honor- 
 able member has referred to expressions 
 on the subject of the embargo law, made 
 in this place, by an honorable and ven- 
 erable gentleman, 1 now favoring us with 
 his presence. He quotes that distin- 
 guished Senator as saying, that, in his 
 judgment, the embargo law was unconsti- 
 tutional, and that therefore, in his opin- 
 ion, the people were not bound to obey 
 it. That, Sir, is perfectly constitutional 
 lansruasre. An unconstitutional law is 
 not binding ; but then it does not rest with 
 a resolution or a law of a Slate legislature 
 to decide whether an act of Congress he or 
 be not constitutional. An unconstitu- 
 tional act of Congress would not bind 
 the people of this District, although they 
 have no legislature to interfere in their 
 behalf; and, on the other hand, a con- 
 stitutional law of Congress does bind 
 the citizens of every State, although all 
 their legislatures should undertake to 
 annul it by act or resolution. The ven- 
 erable Connecticut Senator is a consti- 
 tutional lawyer, of sound principles and 
 enlarged knowledge; a statesman prac- 
 tised and experienced, bred in the com- 
 pany of AVashington, and holding just 
 views upon the nature of our govern- 
 ments. He believed the embargo un- 
 constitutional, and so did others; but 
 what then? "Who did he suppose was 
 to decide that question? The State leg- 
 islatures? Certainly not. Ko such sen- 
 timent ever escaped his lips. 
 
 Let us follow up. Sir, this New Eng- 
 land opposition to the embargo laws; 
 let us trace it, till we discern the princi- 
 ple which controlled and governed New 
 1 Mr. Hillhouse, of Connecticut 
 
 England throughout the whole course 
 of that opposition. We shall then see 
 what similarity there is between the 
 New England school of constitutional 
 opinions, and this modern Carolina 
 school. The gentleman, I think, read 
 a petition from some single individual 
 addressed to the legislature of Massachu- 
 setts, asserting the Carolina doctrine; 
 that is, the right of State interferenco 
 to arrest the laws of the Union. 'J'lio 
 fate of that petition shows the seati- 
 ment of the legislature. It met nc 
 favor. The oi^inions of ^lassachusetts 
 were very different. They had been ex- 
 pressed in 1798, in answer to the reso- 
 lutions of Virginia, and she did not 
 dejiart from them, nor bend them to 
 the times. Misgoverned, wronged, op- 
 pressed, as she felt herself to be, she 
 still held fast her integrity to the Union. 
 The gentleman may find in her proceed- 
 ings much evidence of dissatisfaction 
 with the measures of government, and 
 great and deep dislike to the embargo; 
 all this makes the case so much the 
 stronger for her; for, notwithstanding 
 all tliis dissatisfaction and dislike, she 
 still claimed no right to sever the bonds 
 of the Union. There was heat, and 
 there was anger in her political feeling. 
 Be it so ; but neither her heat nor her 
 anger betrayed her into infidelity to the 
 government. The gentleman labors to 
 prove that she disliked the embargo as 
 much as South Carolina dislikes the 
 tariff, and expressed her dislike as 
 strongly. Be it so ; but did she propose 
 the Carolina remedy? did she threaten 
 to interfere, by State authority, to annul 
 the laws of the Union? That is the 
 question for the gentleman's consi ier- 
 ation. 
 
 No doubt. Sir. a great majority of :ho 
 people of New Knghind conscientiously 
 believed the embargo law of 1807 uncon- 
 stitutional; as conscientiously, certainly, 
 as the people of South Carolina hold that 
 opinion of the tariff. Tliey reasoned 
 thus: Congress has power to regulate 
 commerce ; but here is a law, they said, 
 stopping all commerce, and stopping it 
 indefinitely. The law is perpetual ; that 
 is, it is not limited in poiut of time, and 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 261 
 
 must ot course continue until it shall be 
 repealed by some other law. It is as 
 perpetual, therefore, as the law against 
 treason or murder. Now, is this regu- 
 lating commerce, or destroying it? Is 
 it guiding, controlling, giving the rule 
 to commerce, as a subsisting thing or is 
 it putting an end to it altogether? 
 Xothing is more certain, than th'at a 
 majority in New England deemed this 
 laM" a violation of the Constitution. 
 The verj^ case required by the gentle- 
 man to justify State interference had 
 then arisen. Massachusetts believed 
 this law to be " a deliberate, palpable, 
 and dangerous exercise of a power not 
 granted by the Constitution." Delib- 
 erate it was, for it was long continued; 
 palpable she thought it, as no words in 
 the Constitution gave the power, and 
 only a construction, in her opinion most 
 violent, raised it; dangerous it was, since 
 it threatened utter ruin to her most im- 
 portant interests. Here, then, was a 
 Carolina case. How did ^lassachusetts 
 deal with it? It was, as she thought, a 
 plain, manifest, palpable violation of 
 the Constitution, and it brought ruin to 
 her doors. Thousands of families, and 
 hundreds of thousands of individuals, 
 were beggared by it. While she saw 
 and felt all this, she saw and felt also, 
 that, as a measure of national policy, it 
 was perfectly futile; that the countiy 
 was no way benefited by that which 
 caused so much individual distress ; that 
 it was efficient only for the production 
 of evil, and all that evil inflicted on 
 ourselves. In such a case, under such 
 circumstances, how did Massachusetts 
 demean herself? Sir, she remonstrated, 
 she memorialized, she addressed herself 
 to the general government, not exactly 
 " with the concentrated energy of pas- 
 sion," but with her own strong sense, 
 and the energy of sober conviction. But 
 she did not interpose the arm of her own 
 power to arrest the law, and break the 
 embargo. Far from it. Iler principles 
 bound her to two things; and she fol- 
 lowed her principles, lead where they 
 might. First, to submit to every con- 
 stitutional law of Congress, and sec- 
 ondly, if the constitutional validity of 
 
 the law be doubted, to refer that question 
 to the decision of the proper tribunals. 
 The first principle is vain and ineffect- 
 ual without the second. A majority of 
 us in New England believed the em- 
 bargo law unconstitutional; but the 
 gi-eat question was, and always will be in 
 such cases, AVho is to decide this? Who 
 is to judge between the people and the 
 government? And, Sir, it is quite 
 plain, that the Constitution of the Unit- 
 ed States confers on the government 
 itself, to be exercised by its appropriate 
 department, and under its own respon- 
 sibility to the people, this power of de- 
 ciding ultimately and conclusively upon 
 the just extent of its own authority. If 
 this had not been done, we should not 
 have advanced a single step beyond the 
 old Confederation. 
 
 Being fully of opinion that the em- 
 bargo law was unconstitutional, the 
 people of New England were yet equally 
 clear in the opinion, (it was a matter 
 they did doubt upon,) that the ques- 
 tion, after all, must be decided by the 
 judicial tribunals of the United States. 
 Before those tribunals, therefore, they 
 brought the question. Under the pro- 
 visions of the law, they had given 
 bonds to millions in amount, and wliich 
 were alleged to be forfeited. They 
 suffered the bonds to be sued, and 
 thus raised the question. In the old- 
 fashioned way of settling disputes, they 
 went to law. The case came to hearing 
 and solemn argument; and he who es- 
 poused their cause, and stood up for 
 them against the validity of the em- 
 bargo act, was none other than that 
 great man, of whom the gentleman has 
 made honorable mention, Samuel Dex- 
 ter. He was then, Sir, in the fuhiess 
 of his knowledge, and the maturitj' of 
 his strength. He had retired from long 
 and distinguished public service here, 
 to the renewed pursuit of professional 
 duties, canning with him all that en- 
 largement and expansion, all the new 
 strength and force, which an acquaint- 
 ance with the more general subjects 
 discussed in the national councils is 
 capable of adding to professional attain- 
 ment, in a mind of true greatness and 
 
i!62 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 comprehension He was a lawyer, and 
 he was also a statesman. He had 
 studied the Constitution, when he filled 
 public station, that he might defend it; 
 he had examined its principles that he 
 might maintain them. More than all 
 men, or at least as much as any man, 
 he was attached to the general govern- 
 ment and to the union of the States. 
 His feelings and opinions all ran in that 
 direction. A question of constitutional 
 law, too, was, of all subjects, that one 
 which was best suited to his talents and 
 learning. Aloof from technicality, and 
 unfettered by artificial rule, such a 
 question gave opportunity for that deep 
 and clear analysis, that mighty grasp of 
 principle, which so much distinguished 
 his higher efforts. His very statement 
 was argument; his inference seemed 
 demonstration. The earnestness of his 
 own conviction wi-ought conviction in 
 others. One was convinced, and be- 
 lieved, and assented, because it was 
 gratifying, delightful, to think, and 
 feel, and believe, in unison with an in- 
 tellect of such evident superiority. 
 
 Mi Dexter, Su-, such as I have de- 
 gcribed him, argued the New England 
 cause. He put into his effort his whole 
 heart, as well as all the powers of his 
 miderstanding; for he had avowed, in 
 the most public manner, his entire con- 
 currence with his neighbors on the 
 point in dispute. He argued the cause; 
 it was lost, and Xew England sub- 
 mitted. The established tribunals pro- 
 nounced the law constitutional, and 
 New England acquiesced. Now, Sir, is 
 not this the exact opposite of the doc- 
 trine of the gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina? According to him, instead of 
 referring to the judicial tribunals, we 
 sliould have broken up the embargo by 
 hiws of our own; we should have re- 
 pealed it, quoad New England; for we 
 iiad a strong, palpable, and oppressive 
 case. Sir, we believed the embargo 
 unconstitutional; but still that was 
 matter of opinion, and who was to de- 
 cide it? "We thought it a clear case; 
 but, nevertheless, we did not take the 
 law into our own hands, because we did 
 not wish to bring about a revolution, 
 
 nor to break up the Union ; for I main- 
 tain, that between submission co the 
 decision of the constituted tribunals, 
 and revolution, or disunion, there is no 
 middle giound; there is no ambiguous 
 condition, half allegiance and half re- 
 bellion. And, Sir, how futile, how 
 very futile it is, to admit the right of 
 State* interference, and then attempt to 
 save it from the character of unlawful 
 resistance, by adding terms of qualifica- 
 tion to the causes and occasions, leaving 
 all these qualifications, like the case it- 
 self, in the discretion of the State gov- 
 ernments. It must be a clear case, it is 
 said, a deliberate case, a palpable case, 
 a dangerous case. But then the State 
 is still left at liberty to decide for her- 
 self what is clear, what is deliberate, 
 what is palpable, what is dangerous. 
 Do adjectives and epithets avail any 
 thing? 
 
 Sir, the human mind is so consti- 
 tuted, that the merits of both sides of a 
 controversy appear verj' clear, and very 
 palpable, to those who respectively es- 
 pouse them; and both sides usually 
 grow clearer as the controversy ad- 
 vances. South Carolina sees micon- 
 stitutionality in the tariff; she sees 
 oppression there also, and she sees 
 danger. Peimsylvania, with a vision 
 not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, 
 and sees no such thing in it ; she sees it 
 all constitutional, all useful, all safe. 
 The faith of South Carolina is strength- 
 ened by opposition, and she now not 
 only sees, but resolves, that the tariff 
 is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, 
 and dangerous; but Pennsylvania, not 
 to be behind her neighbors, and equally 
 willing to strengtlien her own faith by a 
 confident asseveration, resolres, also, and 
 gives to every warm affirmative of 
 South Carolina, a plain, downright, 
 Pennsylvania negative. South Caro- 
 lina, to show the stiength and unity of 
 her oinnion, brings her assembly to & 
 unanimity, within seven voices; Penn- 
 sylvania, not to be outdone in this re- 
 spect any more than in others, reduces 
 her dissentient fraction to a single vote. 
 Now, Sir, again, I ask the gentleman, 
 j What is to be done? Are these States 
 
THE REPLY TO IIAYXE. 
 
 263 
 
 both right? Is he bound to consider 
 them both riglit? If not, which is in 
 the wrong? or rather, which has the 
 best right to decide? And if he, and if 
 I, are not to know what the Constitu- 
 tion means, and what it is, till those 
 two State legislatures, and the twenty- 
 two others, shall agree in its construc- 
 tion, what have we sworn to, when we 
 have sworn to maintain it? I was for- 
 cibly strack, Sir, with one reflection, as 
 the gentleman went on in his speech. 
 He quoted Mr. Madison's resolutions, 
 to prove that a State may interfere, in 
 a case of deliberate, palpable, and dan- 
 gerous exercise of a power not granted. 
 The honorable member supposes the 
 tariff law to be such an exercise of 
 power; and that consequently a case 
 has arisen in which the State may, if it 
 see fit, interfere by its own law. Now 
 it so happens, nevertheless, that Mr. 
 Madison deems this same tariff law 
 quite constitutional. Instead of a clear 
 and palpable violation, it is, in his 
 judgment, no violation at all. So that, 
 while they use his authority for a hypo- 
 thetical case, they reject it in the very 
 case before them. All this. Sir, shows 
 the inherent futility, I had almost used 
 a stronger word, of conceding this 
 power of interference to the State, and 
 then attempting to secure it from abuse 
 by imposing qualifications of which the 
 States themselves are to judge. One of 
 two things is true; either the laws of 
 the Union are beyond the discretion and 
 beyond the control of the States; or 
 else we have no constitution of general 
 government, and are thrust back again 
 to the days of the Confederation. 
 
 Let me here say, Sir, that if the gen- 
 tleman's doctiine had been received and 
 acted upon in New England, in the 
 times of the embargo and non-inter- 
 course, we should probably not now 
 have been here. The government would 
 very likely have gone to pieces, and 
 crumbled into dust. No stronger case 
 can ever arise than existed under those 
 laws; no States can ever entertain a 
 clearer conviction than the New Eng- 
 land States then entertained ; and if 
 tliey had been under the influence of 
 
 that heresy of opinion, as I must call 
 it, which the honorable member es- 
 pouses, this Union would, in all proba- 
 bility, have been scattered to the four 
 winds. I ask the gentleman, therefore, 
 to apply his principles to that case; I 
 ask him to come forth and declare, 
 whether, in his opinion, the New Eng- 
 land States would have been justified 
 in interfering to break up the embargo 
 system under the conscientious opinions 
 which they held upon it? Had tliey a 
 right to annul that law? Does he ad- 
 mit or deny? If what is thought pal- 
 pably unconstitutional in South Caro- 
 lina justifies that State in arresting the 
 progress of the law, tell me whether 
 that which was thought palpably uncon- 
 stitutional also in ^lassachusetts would 
 have justified her in doing the same 
 thing. Sir, I deny the whole doctrine. 
 It has not a foot of ground in the Con- 
 stitution to stand on. No public man 
 of reputation ever advanced it in ^lassa- 
 chusetts in the warmest times, or could 
 maintain himself upon it there at any 
 time. 
 
 I wish now. Sir, to make a remark 
 upon the Virginia resolutions of 1798. 
 I cannot undertake to say how these 
 resolutions were understood by those 
 who passed them. Their language is 
 not a little indefinite. In the case of 
 the exercise by Congress of a danger- 
 ous power not granted to them, the 
 resolutions assert the right, on the part 
 of the State, to interfere and arrest the 
 progress of the evil. This is suscepti- 
 ble of more than one interpretation. It 
 may mean no more than that the States 
 may interfere by complaint and remon- 
 strance, or by proposing to the people 
 an alteration of the Federal Constitu- 
 tion. This would all be quite unob- 
 jectionable. Or it may be that no more 
 is meant than to assert the gener;il 
 right of revolution, as against all gov- 
 ernments, in cases of intolerable op- 
 pression. This no one doubts, and tliis, 
 in my opinion, is all that he who framed 
 the resolutions could have meant by it; 
 for I shall not readily believe that he 
 was ever of opinion that a State, under 
 the Constitution and in conformity with 
 
264 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 it, coulJ, upon the ground of her own 
 opinion of its unconstitutionality, how- 
 ever clear and palpable she might think 
 the case, annul a law of Congress, so 
 far as it should operate on herself by 
 her own legislative power. 
 
 T must now beg to ask, Sir, "Whence is 
 this supposed right of tlie States derived? 
 Where do they find the power to inter- 
 fere with the laws of the Union? Sir, 
 the opinion which the honorable gentle- 
 man maintains is a notion founded in a 
 total misapprehension, in my judgment, 
 of the origin of this government, and of 
 the foundation on which it stands. I 
 hold it to be a popular government, 
 erected by the people ; those who admin- 
 ister it, responsible to the people; and 
 itself capable of being amended and 
 modified, just as the people may choose 
 it should be. It is as popular, just as 
 truly emanating from the people, as the 
 State governments. It is created for 
 one purpose ; the State governments for 
 another. It has its own powers; they 
 have theirs. There is no more authority 
 with them to arrest the operation of a 
 law of Congress, than with Congress to 
 arrest the operation of their laws. We 
 are here to administer a Constitution 
 emanating immediately from the people, 
 and tr\isted by tlieiu to our administra- 
 tion. It is not the creature of the State 
 governments. It is of no moment to 
 the argument, that certain acts of the 
 State legislatures are necessary to fill 
 our seats in this body. That is not one 
 of tlieir original State powers, a part of 
 the sovereignty of the State. It is a 
 duty which the people, by the Constitu- 
 tion itself, have imposed on the State 
 legislatures; and which they might have 
 left to be performed elsewhere, if they 
 had seen fit. So they have left the 
 choice of President with electors; but 
 all this does not affect the proposition 
 that this whole government. President, 
 Senate, ami House of Representatives, 
 is a popular government. It leaves it 
 6till all its popular character. The 
 governor of a State (in some of the 
 States) is chosen, not directly by the 
 people, but by those who are choseu by 
 
 the people, for the purpose of perform- 
 ing, among other duties, that of elt-cting 
 a governor. Is the government of the 
 State, on that account, not a popular 
 government? This government, Sir, is 
 the independent offspring of the popular 
 will. It is not the creature of State 
 legislatures ; nay, more, if the whole 
 truth nmst be told, the people brought 
 it into existence, established it, and 
 have hitherto supported it, for the very 
 purpose, amongst others, of imposing 
 certain salutaiy restraints on State sov- 
 ereignties. The States cannot now 
 make war; they cannot contract alli- 
 ances; they cannot make, each for itself, 
 separate regulations of commerce ; they 
 cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin 
 money. If this Constitution, Sir, be 
 the creature of State legislatures, it 
 must be admitted that it has obtained 
 a strange control over the volitions of 
 its creators. 
 
 The people, then, Sir, erected thia 
 government. They gave it a Constitu- 
 tion, and in that Constitution they have 
 enumerated the powers which they be- 
 stow on it. They have made it a lim- 
 ited government. They have defined 
 its authority. They have restrained it 
 to the exercise of such powers as are 
 granted; and all others, they declare, 
 are reserved to the States or the people. 
 But, Sir, they have not stopped here. 
 If they had, they would have accom- 
 plished but half their work. Xo defini 
 tion can be so clear, as to avoid possibil- 
 ity of doubt; no limitation so precise 
 as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, 
 then, shall construe this grant of the 
 people? Who shall interpret their will, 
 where it may be supposed they have left 
 it doubtful? With whom do they -re- 
 pose this ultimate right of deciding on 
 the powers of the government? Sir, 
 they have settled all this in the fullest 
 manner. They have left it with the 
 government itself, in its approjuiate 
 branches. Sir, the very chief end, the 
 main design, for which the whole Con- 
 stitution was framed and adopted, was 
 to establish a government that should 
 not be obliged to act through State 
 agency, or depend on State opinion and 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 265 
 
 State discretion. The people had had 
 quite enough of that kind of govern- 
 ment under tlie Confederation. Under 
 that system, the legal action, the appli- 
 cation of law to individuals, belonged 
 exclusively to the States. Congi'ess 
 could only recommend; their acts were 
 not of binding force, till the States had 
 adopted and sanctioned them. Are we 
 in that condition still? Are we yet 
 at the mercy of State discretion and 
 State construction? Sir, if we are, then 
 vain will be our attempt to maintain the 
 Constitution under which we sit. 
 
 But, Sir, the people have wisely pro- 
 vided, in the Constitution itself, a 
 proper, suitable mode and tribunal for 
 settling questions of constitutional law. 
 There are in the Constitution grants of 
 powers to Congress, and restrictions on 
 tnese powers. There are, also, prohibi- 
 tions on the States. Some authority 
 must, therefore, necessarily exist, hav- 
 ing the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and 
 ascertain the interpretation of these 
 grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. 
 The Constitution has itself pointed out, 
 ordained, and established that authority. 
 How has ic accomplished this great and 
 essential end? By declaring. Sir, that 
 " the Constitution, and the laws of the 
 United States made in pursuance thereof, 
 shall be the supreme law of the land, any 
 thing in the constitution or laws of any 
 State to the contrary notwithstanding/' 
 
 This, Sir, was the first great step. By 
 this the supremacy of the Constitution 
 and laws of the United States is de- 
 clared. The people so will it. No 
 State law is to be valid which comes in 
 conflict with the Constitution, or any 
 law of the United States passed in pur- 
 suance of it. But who shall decide this 
 question of interference? To whom lies 
 the last appeal? This, Sir, the Consti- 
 tution itself decides also, by declaring, 
 ^^ C at the judicial power shall extend to 
 ad cases arising under the Constitution 
 and laws of the United States.'' These 
 two provisions cover the whole ground. 
 They are, in truth, the keystone of the 
 arcli! "With these it is a government; 
 without them it is a confederation. In 
 pursuance of these clear and express 
 
 provisions, Congress established, at its 
 very first session, in the judicial act, a 
 mode for carrying them into full effect, 
 and for bringing all questions of consti- 
 tutional power to the final decision of 
 the Sujireme Court. It then. Sir, be- 
 came a government. It then had the 
 means of self-protection; and but for 
 this, it would, in all probability, have 
 been now among things which are p;vst. 
 Having constituted the government, and 
 declared its powers, the people have fur- 
 ther said, that, since somebody must 
 decide on the extent of these powers, 
 the government shall itself decide; sub- 
 ject, always, like other popular govern- 
 ments, to its responsibility to the people. 
 And now, Sir, I repeat, how is it that a 
 State legislature acquires any power to 
 interfere? Who, or what, gives them 
 the right to say to the people, "We, who 
 are your agents and servants for one pur- 
 pose, will undertake to decide, that your 
 other agents and servants, appointed by 
 you for another puipose, have transcend- 
 ed the authority you gave them ! " The 
 reply would be, I think, not impertinent, 
 " A\nio made you a judge over anoth- 
 er's servants? To their own masters 
 they stand or fall." 
 
 Sir, I deny this power of State legis- 
 latures altogether. It cannot stand the 
 test of examination. Gentlemen may 
 say, that, in an extreme case, a State 
 government might protect the people 
 from intolerable oppression. Sir, in 
 such a case, the people might protect 
 themselves, without the aid of the State 
 governments. Such a case warrants 
 revolution. It must make, when it 
 comes, a law for itself. A nullifying 
 act of a State legislature cannot alter 
 the case, nor make resistance any more 
 lawful. In maintaining these senti- 
 ments, Sir, I am but asserting the rights 
 of the people. I state what they have 
 declared, and insist on their right to de- 
 clare it. They have chosen to repose 
 this power in the general government, 
 and I think it my duty to support it, like 
 other constitutional powers. 
 
 For myself. Sir, I do not admit the 
 competency of South Carolina, or any 
 other State, to prescribe my constitu- 
 
266 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYNt. 
 
 tional duty; or to settle, between me 
 and the people, the validity of laws of 
 Congress for which I have voted. I 
 decline her umpirage. I have not sworn 
 to support the Constitution according to 
 hei 2onstruction of its clauses. I have 
 not stipulated, by my oath of office or 
 otherwise, to come under any responsi- 
 bility, except to the people, and those 
 whom they have appointed to pass upon 
 the question, whether laws, supported 
 by my votes, conform to the Constitu- 
 tion of the country. And, Sir, if we 
 look to the general nature of the case, 
 could any thing have been more prepos- 
 terous, than to make a government for 
 the whole Union, and yet leave its pow- 
 ers subject, not to one interpretation, 
 but to thirteen or twenty-four interpre- 
 tations? Instead of one tribunal, estab- 
 lished by all, responsible to all. with 
 power to decide for all, shall constitu- 
 tional questions be left to four-and- 
 twenty popular bodies, each at liberty 
 to decide for itself, and none bound to 
 respect the decisions of others, — and 
 each at liberty, too, to give a new con- 
 struction on every new election of its 
 own members? Would any thing, with 
 Buch a principle in it, or rather with 
 such a destitution of all principle, be fit 
 to be called a government? No, Sir. 
 It should not be denominated a Consti- 
 tution. It should be called, rather, 
 a collection of topics for everlasting 
 controversy; heads of debate for a dis- 
 putatious people. It would not be a 
 government. It would not be adequate 
 to any practical good, or fit for any 
 country to live under. 
 
 To avoid all possibility of being mis- 
 understood, allow me to repeat again, in 
 the fullest manner, that I claim no pow- 
 ers for the government by forced or un- 
 fair con.struction. I admit that it is a 
 government of strictly limited powers; 
 of enumerated, specified, and particular- 
 ized powers; and that what.^oever is not 
 granted, is withheld. But notwithstand- 
 ing all this, and however the grant of 
 powers may be expressed, its limit and 
 extent may yet, in some cases, admit 
 of doubt; and the general government 
 would be tjood for nothing, it would be 
 
 incapable of long existing, if some mode 
 had not been provided in which those 
 doubts, as they should arise, might be 
 peaceably, but authoritatively, solved. 
 
 And now, Mr. President, let me run 
 the honorable gentleman's doctrine a lit- 
 tle into its practical application. Let us 
 look at his probable modus operandi. If a 
 thing can be done, an ingenious man can 
 tell how it is to be done, and I wish to 
 be informed how this State interference 
 is to be put in practice, without violence, 
 bloodshed, and rebellion. "We will take 
 the existing case of the tariff law. 
 South Carolina is said to have made up 
 her opinion upon it. If we do not 
 repeal it, (as we probably shall not,) 
 she will then apply to the case the rem- 
 edy of her doctrine. She will, we must 
 suppose, pass a law of her legislature, 
 declaring the several acts of Congress 
 usually called the tariff laws null and 
 void, so far as they respect South Caro- 
 lina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all 
 is a paper transaction, and easy enough. 
 But the collector at Charleston is col- 
 lecting the duties imposed by these tariff 
 laws. He, therefore, must be stopped. 
 The collector will seize the goods if the 
 tariff duties are not paid. The State 
 authorities will undertake their rescue, 
 the marshal, witli his posse, will come 
 to the collector's aid, and here the con- 
 test begins. The militia of the State 
 will be called out to sustain the nullify- 
 ing act. They will march. Sir, under a 
 very gallant leader; for I believe the 
 honorable member himself commands 
 the militia of that part of the State. 
 He will raise the nullifying .^ct on 
 his standard, and spread it out as his 
 banner! It will have a preamble, set- 
 ting forth that the tariff laws are palpa- 
 ble, deliberate, and dangerous violations 
 of the Constitution! He will proceed, 
 with this banner flying, to the custom- 
 house in Charleston, 
 
 "All the while 
 Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds." 
 
 Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell 
 the collector that he must collect no 
 more duties under any of the tariff laws. 
 This he will be somewhat puzzled to say, 
 by the way, with a grave countenance, 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 267 
 
 considering what hand South Carolina 
 herself had in tliat of 1816. But, Sir, 
 the collector would not, probably, desist, 
 at his bidding. He would show him 
 the law of Congress, the treasury instruc- 
 tion, and his own oath of office. lie 
 would say, he should perform his duty, 
 come what come might. 
 
 Here would ensue a pause; for they 
 say that a certain stillness precedes the 
 tempest. The trumpeter would hold his 
 breath awhile, and before all this mili- 
 tary array should fall on tlie custom- 
 house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very 
 probable some of those composing it 
 would request of their gallant com- 
 mander-in-chief to be informed a little 
 upon the point of law; for they have, 
 doubtless, a just respect for his opinions 
 as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery 
 as a soldier. They know he has read 
 Blackstone and the Constitution, as well 
 as Turenue and Yauban. They would 
 ask him, therefore, something concern- 
 ing their rights in this matter. They 
 woidd inquire, whether it was not some- 
 ■what dangerous to resist a law of the 
 United States. What would be the na- 
 ture of their offence, they would wish 
 to learn, if they, by military force and 
 array, resisted the execution in Carolina 
 of a law of the United States, and it 
 should turn out, after all, that the law 
 was constitutional? He would answer, 
 of course, Treason. No lawyer could 
 give any other answer. John Fries, he 
 ■would tell them, had learned that, some 
 years ago. How, then, they would ask, 
 do you propose to defend us? We are 
 not afraid of bullets, but treason has a 
 way of taking people off that we do not 
 much relish. How do you propose to 
 defend us? " Look at my floating ban- 
 ner," he would reply; "see there the 
 nullifying law!^' Is it your opinion, 
 gallant commander, they would then 
 say, that, if we should be indicted 
 for treason, that same floating banner 
 of yours would make a good plea in 
 bar? " South Carolina is a sovereign 
 State," he would reply. That is true; 
 but would the judge admit our plea? 
 "These tariff laws," he would repeat, 
 ' are unconstitutional, palpably, delib- 
 
 erately, dangerously." That may all bo 
 so; but if the tribunal should not hap- 
 pen to be of that opinion, shall we swing 
 for it? We are ready to die for our coun- 
 tiy, but it is rather an awkward business, 
 this dying without touching the ground! 
 After all, that is a sort of hemp tax 
 worse than any part of the tariff. 
 
 Mr. President, the honorable gentle- 
 man would be in a dilemma, like that of 
 another great general. He would have 
 a knot before him which he could not 
 untie. He must cut it with his sword. 
 He must say to his followers, " Defend 
 yourselves with your bayonets"; and 
 this is war, — civil war. 
 
 Direct collision, therefore, between 
 force and force, is the unavoidable re- 
 sult of that remedy for the revision of 
 unconstitutional laws which the gentle- 
 man contends for. It must happen in 
 the very first case to w^hich it is applied. 
 Is not this the plain result? To resist 
 by force the execution of a law, gener- 
 ally, is treason. Can the courts of the 
 United States take notice of the indul- 
 gence of a State to commit treason? The 
 common saying, that a State cannot 
 commit treason herself, is nothing to the 
 purpose. Can she authorize othei-s to 
 do it? If John Fries had produced an 
 act of Pennsylvania, annulling the law 
 of Congress, would it have helped his 
 case? Talk about it as we will, these 
 doctrines go the length of revolution. 
 They are incompatible wnth any peace- 
 able administration of the government. 
 They lead directly to disunion and civil 
 commotion ; and therefore it is, that at 
 their commencement, when they are 
 first found to be maintained by re- 
 spectable men, and in a tangible form, 
 1 enter my public protest against them 
 all. 
 
 The honorable gentleman argues, that, 
 if this government be the sole judge of 
 the extent of its own powers, wliether 
 that right of judging be in Congress or 
 the Supreme Court, it equally subverts 
 State sovereignty. This the gentleman 
 sees, or thinks he sees, although he can- 
 not perceive how the right of judijing, 
 in this matter, if left to the exercise of 
 State legislatures, has any tendency to 
 
268 
 
 THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 subvert tne government of the Union. 
 The gentleman's opinion may be, that 
 the right ought not to have been lodged 
 with the general government; he may 
 like better such a constitution as we 
 should ha,ve under the right of State in- 
 terference; but I ask him to meet me on 
 the plain matter of fact. I ask him to 
 mef't me on the Constitution itself. I 
 ask him if the power is not found there, 
 clearly and visibly found there? 
 
 But, Sir, what is this danger, and 
 what are the grounds of it? Let it be 
 remembered, that the Constitution of 
 the United States is not unalterable. It 
 is to continue in its present form no 
 longer than the people who established 
 it shall choose to continue it. If they 
 shall become convinced that they have 
 made an injudicious or inexpedient par- 
 tition and distribution of power between 
 the State governments and the general 
 government, they can alter that distribu- 
 tion at will. 
 
 If any thing be found in the national 
 Constitution, either by original provision 
 or subsequent interpretation, which 
 ought not to be in it, the people know 
 how to get rid of it. If any construc- 
 tion, unacceptable to them, be estab- 
 lished, so as to become practically a 
 part of the Constitution, they will amend 
 it, at their own sovereign pleasure. But 
 while the people choose to maintain it 
 as it is, while they are satisfied with it, 
 and refuse to change it, who has given, 
 or who can give, to the State legislatures 
 a right to alter it, either by interference, 
 construction, or otherwise? Gentlemen 
 do not seem to recollect that the people 
 liave any power to do any thing for 
 themselves. They imagine there is no 
 Bafet} for them, any longer than they 
 are under the clo.se guardian.ship of the 
 State legislatures. Sir, the people have 
 I <*■; trusted their safety, in regard to 
 the general Constitution, to these hands. 
 They have required other security, and 
 taken other bonds. They have chosen 
 tc» trust themselves, first, to the plain 
 words of the instrument, and to such 
 construction as the government them- 
 selves, in doubtful ca.ses, should put on 
 their own powers, under their oaths of 
 
 office, and subject to their re.sponsibility 
 to them; just as the people of a Stat« 
 trust their own State governments with 
 a similar power. Secondly, they have 
 reposed their trust in the efficacy of fre- 
 quent elections, and in their own power 
 to remove their own servants and agents 
 whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they 
 have reposed trust in the judicial power, 
 which, in order that it might be trust- 
 worthy, they have made as respectable, 
 as disinterested, and as independent as 
 wa3 practicable. Fourthly, they have 
 seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or 
 high expediency, on their known and 
 admitted power to alter or amend the 
 Constitution, peaceably and quietly, 
 whenever experience shall point out de- 
 fects or imperfections. And, finally, 
 the people of the United States have 
 at no time, in no way, directly or in- 
 directly, authorized any State legislature 
 to construe or interpret their high instru- 
 ment of government; much less, to in- 
 terfere, by their own power, to arrest 
 its course and operation. 
 
 If, Sir, the people in these respects 
 had done otherwise than they have done, 
 their Constitution could neither have 
 been preserved, nor would it have been 
 worth preserving. And if its plain pro 
 visions shall now be disregarded, and 
 these new doctrines interpolated in it, 
 it will become as feeble and helpless a 
 being as its enemies, whether early or 
 more recent, could possibly desire. It 
 will exist in every State but as a poor 
 dependent on State permission. It must 
 borrow leave to be; and will be, no lon- 
 ger than State pleasure, or State discre- 
 tion, sees fit to grant the indulgence, 
 and to prolong its poor existence. 
 
 But, Sir, although there are fears, 
 there are hopes also. The people have 
 preserved this, their own chosen Consti- 
 tution, for forty years, and have seen 
 their happiness, prosperity, and renown 
 grow with its growth, and strengthen 
 with its strength. They are now, gen- 
 erally, strongly attached to it. Over- 
 thrown by direct assault, it cannot be; 
 evaded, undermined, xullikiko, it will 
 not be, if we and those who shall suc- 
 ceed us here, as agents and representa- 
 
THE RErLY TO IIAYNE. 
 
 ii<j9 
 
 tives of the people, shall coiiscientioiLsly 
 and vigilantly discharge the two great 
 branches of our public trust, faithfully 
 to preserve, and wisely to administer it. 
 
 Mr. President, I. have thus stated the 
 reasons of my dissent to the doctrines 
 which have l)een advanced and main- 
 tained. 1 am conscious of having de- 
 tained you and the Senate much too 
 long. I was drawn into the debate 
 with no previous deliberation, such as is 
 suited to the discussion of so grave and 
 important a subject. But it is a subject 
 of which my heart is full, and I have 
 not been willing to sujtpress the utter- 
 ance of its spontaneous sentiments. I 
 cannot, even now, persuade myself to 
 relinquish it, without expressing once 
 more my deep conviction, that, since it 
 respects nothing less than the Union of 
 the States, it is of most vital and essen- 
 tial importance to the public happiness. 
 I profess, Sir, in my career hitherto, to 
 have kept steadily in view the prosperity 
 and honor of the whole country, and the 
 preservation of our Federal Union. It 
 is to that Union we owe our safety at 
 home, and our consideration and dignity 
 abroad. It is to that Union that we are 
 chiefly indebted for whatever makes us 
 most proud of our country. That Union 
 we reached only by the discipline of our 
 virtues in the severe school of adversity. 
 It had its origin in the necessities of dis- 
 ordered finance, prostrate commerce, and 
 ruined credit. Under its benign influ- 
 ences, these great interests immediately 
 awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth 
 with newness of life. Every year of its 
 duration has teemed with fresh proofs of 
 its utility and its blessings ; and altiiough 
 our territory has stretched out wider and 
 wider, and our population spread farther 
 and farther, they have not outrun its pro- 
 tection or its benefits. It has been to us 
 all a copious fountain of national, social, 
 and personal happiness. 
 
 I have not allowed myself. Sir, to look 
 beyond the Union, to see what might lie 
 hidden in the dark recess behind. I 
 have not coolly weighed the chances of 
 preserving liberty when the bonds that 
 unite us together shall be broken asun- 
 der. I have not accustomed myself to 
 
 hang over the precipice of disunion, 
 to see whether, with my short sight, I 
 can fathom the depth of the abyss below; 
 nor could I regard him as a safe coun- 
 sellor in the affairs of this government, 
 whose thoughts .should be mainly bent 
 on considering, not how the Union may 
 be best preserved, but how tolerable 
 might be the condition of the people 
 when it should be broken up and de- 
 stroyed. While the Union lasts, \\9 
 have high, exciting, gratifying prospects 
 spread out before us, for us and our 
 children. Beyond that I seek not to 
 penetrate the veil. God grant that, in 
 my day, at least, that curtain may not 
 rise! God grant that on my vision never 
 may be opened what lies behind ! When 
 my eyes shall be turned to behold for 
 the last time the sun in heaven, may I 
 not see him shining on the broken and 
 dishonored fragments of a once glorious 
 Union; on States dissevered, discordant, 
 belligerent; on a land rent with civil 
 feuds, or drenched, it may be, in frater- 
 nal blood! Let their last feeble and 
 lingering glance rather behold the gor- 
 geous ensign of the republic, now known 
 and honored throughout the earth, stiU 
 full high advanced, its arms and tro- 
 phies streaming in their original lustre, 
 not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a 
 single star obscured, bearing for its 
 motto, no such miserable interrogatory 
 as " AVhat is all this worth?" nor 
 those other words of delusion and folly, 
 " Liberty first and Union afterwards " ; 
 but everywhere, spread all over in char- 
 acters of living light, blazing on all its 
 ample folds, as they float over the sea 
 and over the land, and in every wind 
 under the whole heavens, that other sen- 
 timent, dear to every true American 
 heart, — Liberty and Union, now and 
 for ever, one and inseparable! 
 
 Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr 
 Webster, especially on the constitutiDual 
 question, Mr. Webster rose, and, in conclu- 
 sion, said : — 
 
 A few words, Mr. President, on 'his 
 constitutional argument, which the hon- 
 orable gentleman has labored to recon- 
 struct. 
 
270 
 
 THE REPLY TO IIAYNL. 
 
 His ar^ment consists of two propo- 
 sitioni and an inference. His proposi- 
 tions are, — 
 
 1. That the Constitution is a compact 
 between the States. 
 
 2. That a compact between two, with 
 authority reserved to one to interpret its 
 terms, would be a surrender to that one 
 of all jx)wer whatever. 
 
 3. Therefore, (such is his inference,) 
 the general government does not pos- 
 sess the authority to construe its own 
 powers. 
 
 Xow, Sir, who does not see, without 
 the aid of exposition or detection, the 
 utter confusion of ideas involved in this 
 60 elaborate and systematic argument. 
 
 The Constitution, it is said, is a 
 compact beltceen Stales ; the States, 
 then, and the States only, are parties 
 to the compact. How comes the gen- 
 eral government itself a party? Upon 
 the honorable gentleman's hypothesis, 
 the general government is the result of 
 the compact, the creature of the com- 
 pact, not one of the parties to it. Yet 
 the argument, as the gentleman has now 
 stated it, makes the government itself 
 one of its own creators. It makes it a 
 party to that compact to which it owes 
 its own existence. 
 
 For the purpose of erecting the Con- 
 stitution on the basis of a compact, the 
 gentleman considers the States as par- 
 ties to that compact; but as soon as his 
 compact is made, then he chooses to 
 consider the general government, which 
 is the offspring of that compact, not its 
 offspring, but one of its parties; and so, 
 being a party, without the power of 
 judging on the terms of compact. Pray, 
 Sir, in what school is such reasoning as 
 this tauglitV 
 
 It the whole of the gentleman's main 
 proposition were conceded to him, — that 
 is to say, if I admit, for the sake of the 
 argument, that the Constitution is a 
 compact between States, — the inferences 
 which he draws from that proposition 
 are warranted by no just reasoning. If 
 the Constitution be a compact between 
 States, still that Constitution, or that 
 compact, has established a goverimient, 
 with certain powers; and whetiier it be 
 
 one of those powers, that it shall con- 
 strue and interpret for itself the terms 
 of the compact, in doubtful cases, is a 
 question which can only be decided by 
 looking to the compact, and inquiring 
 what provisions it contains on this point. 
 Without any inconsistency with natural 
 reason, the government even thus cre- 
 ated might be trusted with this power 
 of construction. The extent of its pow- 
 ers, therefore, must still be sought for 
 in the instrument itself. 
 
 If the old Confederation had con- 
 tained a clause, declaring that resolu- 
 tions of the Congress should be the 
 supreme law of the land, any State law 
 or constitution to the contrary- notwith- 
 standing, and that a committee of Con- 
 gress, or any other body created by it, 
 should possess judicial powers, extending 
 to all cases arising under resolutions of 
 Congress, then the power of ultimate de- 
 cision would have been vested in Congress 
 under the Confederation, although that 
 Confederation was a compact between 
 States; and for this plain reason, — that 
 it would have been competent to tlie 
 States, who alone were parties to the 
 compact, to agree who should decide in 
 cases of dispute arising on the construc- 
 tion of the compact. 
 
 For the same reason, Sir, if I were 
 now to concede to the gentleman his 
 principal proposition, namely, that the 
 Constitution is a compact between 
 States, the question would still be, 
 "W'hat provision is made, in this com- 
 pact, to settle points of disputed con- 
 struction, or contested power, that shall 
 come into controversy? And tliis ques- 
 tion would still be answered, and con- 
 clusively answered, by the Constitution 
 itself. 
 
 While the gentleman is contending 
 against construction, he himself is set- 
 ting up the most loose and dangerous con- 
 struction. The Constitution declares, 
 that the laws of Congress passed m pur- 
 suance of the Constitution shall be the su- 
 preme law of the land. Xo construction 
 is necessary here. It declares, also, 
 with equal plainness and precision, that 
 the judicial power of the United States 
 shall extend to every case arising under the 
 
THE REPLY TO HAYNE. 
 
 271 
 
 laws of Coiifjress. This needs no con- 
 Btruction. Here is a law, then, which 
 is declared to be suproinc; and here is a 
 power established, whicli is to interpret 
 that law. Now, Sir, how has the gen- 
 tleman met this? Suppose the Consti- 
 tution to be a compact, yet here are its 
 terms ; and how does the gentleman get 
 rid of them? He cannot argue the seal 
 off the bond, nor the words out of the 
 instrument. Here they are; what an- 
 swer does he give to them? None in 
 the world. Sir, except, that the effect of 
 this would be to place the States in a 
 condition of inferiority; and that it re- 
 sults from the very nature of things, 
 there being no superior, that the parties 
 must be their own judges ! Thus closely 
 and cogently does the honorable gentle- 
 man reason on the words of the Consti- 
 tution. The gentleman says, if there 
 be such a power of final decision in the 
 general government, he asks for the 
 grant of that power. Well, Sir, I show 
 him the grant. I turn him to the very 
 words. I show him that the laws of 
 Congress are made supreme; and that 
 the judicial power extends, by express 
 words, to the interpretation of these laws. 
 Instead of answering this, he retreats 
 into the general reflection, that it must 
 result from the nature of things, that the 
 States, being parties, must judge for 
 themselves. 
 
 I have admitted, that, if the Consti- 
 tution were to be considered as the crea- 
 ture of the State governments, it might 
 be modified, interpreted, or construed 
 according to their pleasure. But, even 
 in that case, it would be necessary that 
 they should agree. One alone could not 
 interpret it conclusively ; one alone could 
 not construe it; one alone could not 
 modify it. Yet the gentleman's doctrine 
 is, that Carolina alone may construe and 
 interpret that compact which equally 
 binds all, and gives equal rights to all. 
 
 So, then, Sir, even supposing the 
 Constitution to be a compact between 
 the States, the gentleman's doctrine, 
 nevertheless, is not maintainable; be- 
 cause, first, the general government is 
 not a party to that compact, but a gnv- 
 env'ient established by it, and vested by 
 
 it with the powers of trying and decid- 
 ing doubtful questions; and secondly, 
 because, if the Constitution be regarded 
 as a compact, not one State only, but 
 all the States, are parties to that com- 
 pact, and one can have no right to fix 
 upon it her own peculiar construction. 
 
 So much, Sir, for the argument, even 
 if the premises of the gentleman were 
 granted, or could be proved. But, Sir, 
 the gentleman has failed to maintain 
 his leading proposition. He has not 
 shown, it cannot be shown, that the 
 Constitution is a compact between State 
 governments. The Constitution itself, 
 in its very front, refutes that idea; it 
 declares that it is ordained and estab- 
 lished by the people of the United Stales. 
 So far from saying that it is established 
 by the governments of the several States, 
 it does not even say that it is established 
 by the people of the several States; but 
 it pronounces that it is established by 
 the people of the United States, in the 
 aggregate. The gentleman says, it must 
 mean no more than the people of the 
 several States. Doubtless, the people 
 of the several States, taken collectively, 
 constitute the people of the United 
 States; but it is in this, their collective 
 capacity, it is as all the people of the 
 United States, that they establish the 
 Constitution. So they declare; and 
 words cannot be plainer than the words 
 used. 
 
 When the gentleman says the Consti- 
 tution is a compact between the States, 
 he uses language exactly applicable to 
 the old Confederation. He speaks as if 
 he were in Congress before 1789. He 
 describes fully that old state of things 
 then existing. The Confederation was, 
 in strictness, a compact; the States, as 
 States, were parties to it. We had no 
 other general government. But that 
 was found insufficient, and inadequate 
 to the public exigencies. The people 
 were not satisfied with it, and undertook 
 to establish a better. They undertook 
 to form a general government, which 
 should stand on a new basis; not a con- 
 federacy, not a league, not a compact 
 between States, but a Constitution ; a 
 popular government, founded in popular 
 
1^72 
 
 THE REPLY TO IIAYNE. 
 
 election, directly responsible to the peo- 
 ple themselves, and divided into branches 
 witli prescribed limits of power, and pre- 
 scribed duties. They ordained such a 
 government, they gave it the name of 
 a Consuiution, and therein they estab- 
 lished a distribution of powers between 
 this, their general government, and their 
 several State governments. When they 
 shall become dissatisfied with this dis- 
 tribution, they can alter it. Their own 
 power over their own instrument re- 
 mains. But until they shall alter it, it 
 must stand as their will, and is equally 
 binding on the general government and 
 on the States. 
 
 The gentleman, Sir, finds analogy 
 where I see none. He likens it to the 
 case of a treaty, in which, there being 
 no common superior, each party must 
 intei-pret for itself, under its own obli- 
 gation of good faith. But this is not a 
 treaty, but a constitution of govern- 
 ment, with powers to execute itself, and 
 fulfil its duties. 
 
 I admit, Sir, that this government is 
 a government of checks and balances; 
 that is, the House of Representatives is a 
 check on the Senate, and the Senate is a 
 check on the House, and the President 
 a check ou both. But I cannot compre- 
 
 hend him, or, if I do, I totally differ 
 from him, when he applies the notion 
 of checks and balances to the inter- 
 ference of different governments. lie 
 argues, that, if we transgress our con- 
 stitutional limits, each State, as a State, 
 has a right to check \is. Does he admit 
 the converse of the proposition, that we 
 have a right to check the States ? The 
 gentleman's doctrines would give us a 
 strange jumble of authorities and pow- 
 ers, instead of governments of separate 
 and defined powers. It is the part of 
 wisdom, I think, to avoid this; and to a 
 keep the general government and the ( 
 State government each in its proi)er 
 sphere, avoiding as carefully as possible 
 every kind of interference. 
 
 Finally, Sir, the honorable gentleman 
 says, that the States will only interfere, 
 by their power, to preserve the Constitu- 
 tion. They will not destroy it, they 
 will not impair it; they will only save, 
 they will only preserve, they will only 
 strengthen it ! Ah ! Sir, this is but the 
 old story. AU regulated governments, 
 all free governments, have been broken 
 by similar disinterested and well-dis- 
 posed interference. It is the common 
 pretence. But 1 take leave of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT BETWEEN 
 
 SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 A SPEECH DELIVErvED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON TIIF 
 16th of FEBRUARY, 1833. IN REPLY TO MR CALHOUN'S SPEECH ON TUK 
 BILL "FURTHER TO PKOVIDE FOU THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON l.M 
 POUTS." 
 
 [Osf the 21st of January, 1833, Mr. Wil- 
 ki'js, ' liairniiin of the Judiciary Committee 
 01 tiic Senate, introduced tlic bill further to 
 provide for tiie collection of duties. On the 
 22d day of the same month, Mr. Calhoim 
 submitted the following resolutions : — 
 
 " Resolved, That the people of the several 
 States composing these United States are united 
 as parties to a constitutional compact, to which 
 the people of each State acceded as a separate 
 sovereign community, each binding itself hy its 
 own particular ralilication; and that the union, 
 of which tlie said comiiact is the bond, is a union 
 between the States ratifying the same. 
 
 '^ Jiesulced, Tliat tlie people of the several 
 States thus united by the constitutional com- 
 pact, in forming that instrument, and in creat- 
 ing a general government to carry into elfect 
 the objects for which they were formed, dele- 
 gated to that government, "for that purpose, cer- 
 tain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, 
 reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, 
 the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by 
 its own separate govermnent; and that when- 
 ever the general government assumes the exer- 
 cise of powers not delegated bj- the compact, its 
 acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and 
 that the same government is not made the final 
 judge of the powers delegated to it, since that 
 would make its discretion, and not the Consti- 
 tution, the measure of its powers; but that, as 
 in all other cases of compact among sovereign 
 parties, without any common judge, each has 
 an eiiual right to judge for itself, as well of the 
 infraction as of the mode and measure of redress. 
 
 ''Resolved, That the assertions, tliat the peo- 
 ple of these United States, taken collectively as 
 individuals, are now, or ever have been, united on 
 the principle of the social compact, and, as such, 
 are iiow formed into one nation or people, or 
 that they have ever been so united in any one 
 Mage of their political existence; that the peo- 
 ple of the several States composing the Union 
 Dave not, as members thereof, retained their sov- 
 ereignty; that the allegiance of their citizens 
 has been transferred to the general govern- 
 ment; that they have parted with the right of 
 punishing treason through their respective State 
 governments; and that they have nut the right 
 of judging in the last resort as to the extent of 
 
 the powers reserved, and of consequence of 
 those delegated, — are not only without founda- 
 tion in truth, but are contrary to the most cer- 
 tain and plain historical facts, and the clearest 
 deductions of reason; and that all exercise of 
 p iwer on the part of the general government, or 
 any of its departments, claiming authority from 
 such erroneous assumptions, must of necessity 
 be unconstitutional. — must tend, directly and 
 inevitably, to subvert the sovereignty of the 
 States, to destroy the federal character of the 
 Union, and to rear on its ruins a coi\solidated 
 government, without constitutional check or lim- 
 itation, and which must necessarily terminate in 
 the loss of liberty itself." 
 
 On Saturday, the 16th of February, Mr 
 Calhoun spoke in opposition to the bill, and 
 in support of these resolutions. He was 
 followed by Mr. Webster in this speech.l 
 
 Mr. Presidkxt, — The gentleman 
 from South Carolina has admonished 
 us to be mindful of the opinions of 
 those who shall come after us. We 
 must take our chance, Sir, as to the 
 light in which posterity will regard na 
 I do not decline its judgment, nor with- 
 hold myself from its scrutiny. Feeling 
 that I am performing my public duty 
 with singleness of heart and to the best 
 of my ability, I fearlessly trust myself 
 to the country', now and hereafter, aiid 
 leave both my motives and my character 
 to its decision. 
 
 The gentleman has terminated his 
 speech in a tone of threat and detiance 
 towards this bill, even should it become 
 a law of the land, altogether unusual in 
 the halls of Congress. But I shall not 
 sutfer myself to be excited into warmth 
 by his denunciation of the measure which 
 J support. Among the feelings wliich 
 18 
 
274 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 at this moment fill my breast, not the 
 least is that of ) egret at the position in 
 which the gentleman has placed himself. 
 Sir, he does himself no justice. The 
 cause which he has espoused finds no 
 basis in the Constitution, no succor from 
 public spnpathy, no cheeiing from a 
 patriotic comnumity. He has no foot- 
 hold on which to stand while he might 
 display the powers of his acknowledged 
 talents. Every thing beneath his feet 
 is hollow and treacherous. He is like 
 a strong man struggling in a morass: 
 every effort to extricate himself only 
 sinks him deeper and deeper. And I 
 fear the resemblance may be carried 
 still farther; I fear that no friend can 
 safely come to his relief, that no one can 
 approach near enough to hold out a help- 
 ing hand, without danger of going dovm 
 himself, also, into the bottomless depths 
 of this Serbonian bog. 
 
 The honorable gentleman has de- 
 clared, that on the decision of the ques- 
 tion now in debate may depend the 
 cause of liberty itself. I am of the same 
 opinion; but then. Sir, the liberty which 
 I think is staked on the contest is not 
 political liberty, in any general and un- 
 defined character, but our own well- 
 understood and long-enjoyed American 
 liberty. 
 
 Sir, I love Liberty no less ardently 
 than the gentleman himself, in whatever 
 form she may have appeared in the 
 progress of human history. As exhib- 
 ited in the master states of antiquity, 
 as breaking out again from amidst the 
 darkness of the Middle Ages, and beam- 
 ing on tlie formation of new communi- 
 ties in modern Europe, she has, always 
 and every^vhere, charms for me. Yet, 
 Sir, it is our own liberty, guarded by 
 constitutions and secured by union, it is 
 that liberty which is our paternal inher- 
 itance, it is our established, dear-bought, 
 peculiar American liberty, to which I 
 am chiefly devoted, and the cause of 
 which I now mean, to the utmost of my 
 power, to maintain and defend. 
 
 Mr. President, if I considered the con- 
 stitutional question now before us as 
 doubtful as it is important, and if 1 sup- 
 posed that its decision, either la the 
 
 Senate or by the country, was likely to 
 be in anv degree influenced bv the man- 
 ner in which I might now discuss it, this 
 would be to me a moment of deep solici- 
 tude. Such a moment has once existed. 
 There has been a time, when, rising in 
 this place, on the same question, I felt, 
 I must confess, that something for good , 
 or evU to the Constitution of the couu- \ 
 try might depend on an effort of mine, / 
 But circumstances are changed. Sln(« 
 that day. Sir, the public opinion has be- 
 come awakened to this great question, \ 
 it has grasped it ; it has reasoned upon it, \ 
 as becomes an intelligent and patriotic 
 community, and has settled it, or now 
 seems in the progress of settling it, by 
 an authority which none can disobey, 
 the authority of the people themselves. . 
 
 I shall not, !Mr. President, follow the | 
 gentleman, step by step, through the 
 course of his speech. !Much of what he 
 has said he has deemed necessary to the 
 just explanation and defence of his own 
 political character and conduct. On this 
 I shall offer no comment. Much, too, 
 has consisted of philosophical remark 
 upon the general nature of political lib- 
 erty, and the history of free institutions; 
 and upon other topics, so general in 
 their natm-e as to possess, in my opinion, 
 only a remote bearing on the imm»diate 
 subject of this debate. 
 
 Bat the gentleman's speech made 
 some days ago, upon introducing his 
 resolutions, those resolutions them • 
 selves, and parts of the speech now just 
 concluded, may, I presume, be justly re- 
 garded as containing the whole South 
 Carolina doctrine. That doctrnie it is 
 my purpose now to examine, and to 
 compare it with the Constitution of the 
 United States. I shall not consent, Sir, 
 to make any new constitution, or to 
 establish another form of government. 
 I will not undertake to say what a con- 
 stitution for these United States ouglit 
 to be. That question the people have 
 decided for themselves; and I shall take 
 tiie instrument as they have establislied 
 it, and shall endeavor to maintain it, in 
 its plain sense and meaning, against 
 opinions and notions which, in my judg- 
 ment, threaten its subversion. 
 
 \ 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 275 
 
 The resolutions introduced by the gen- 
 tleman were apparently drawn up with 
 care, and brought forward upon deliber- 
 ation. I shall not be iu danger, there- 
 fore, of misunderstanding him, or those 
 who agree with him, if I proceed at 
 once to these resolutions, and consider 
 theiu as an authentic statement of tliose 
 opinions ujx)n the great constitutional 
 question by which the recent proceixi- 
 ings in South Carolina are attempted to 
 be justified. 
 
 These resolutions are three in num- 
 ber. 
 
 The third seems intended to enumer- 
 ate, and to deny, the several opinions 
 expressed in the President's proclama- 
 tion, respecting the nature and powers 
 of this government. Of this third reso- 
 lution, I purpose, at present, to take no 
 particular notice. 
 
 The first two resolutions of the honor- 
 able member affirm these propositions, 
 viz. : — 
 
 1. That the political system under 
 which we live, and under which Con- 
 gress is now assembled, is a compact, to 
 which the people of the several States, 
 as separate and sovereign communities, 
 are the parties. 
 
 2. That these sovereign parties have 
 a right to judge, each for itself, of any 
 alleged violation of the Constitution by 
 Congress; and, in case of such viola- 
 tion, to choose, each for itself, its own 
 mode and measure of redress. 
 
 It is true. Sir, that the honorable 
 member calls this a "constitutional" 
 compact; but still he affirms it to be 
 a compact between sovereign States. 
 What precise meaning, then, does he 
 attach to the tenn constitutional f When 
 applied to compacts between sovereign 
 States, the term constitutional affixes to 
 the word compact no definite idea. Were 
 we to hear of a constitutional league or 
 treaty between England and France, or 
 a constitutional convention between Aus- 
 tria and Russia, we should not under- 
 stand what could be intended by such a 
 league, such a treaty, or such a conven- 
 tion . In these connections, the word, is 
 void of all meaning; and yet. Sir, it is 
 easy, quite easy, to sec why the honor- 
 
 able gentleman has used it in these reso- 
 lutions. He cannot open the book, and 
 look upon our written frame of govern- 
 ment, without seeing that it is called a 
 constitution. This may well be appalling 
 to him. It threatens his whole doctrine 
 of compact, and its darling di^-ivatives, 
 nullification and secession, with instant 
 confutation. Because, if he jidmits our 
 instrument of government to be a con- 
 stitution, then, for that very reason, it is 
 not a compact between sovereigns; a 
 constitution of government and a com- 
 pact between sovereign powers beinc 
 things essentially unlike in their very 
 natures, and incapable of ever being the 
 same. Yet the word constitution is on 
 the very front of the instrument. He 
 cannot overlook it. He seeks, therefore, 
 to compromise the matter, and to sink 
 all the substantial sense of the word, 
 while he retains a resemblance of its 
 sound. He introduces a new word of 
 his own, viz. compact, as importing the 
 principal idea, and designed to play the 
 principal part, and degrades constitution 
 into an insignificant, idle epithet, at- 
 tached to compact. The whole then \ 
 stands as a ^^constitutional compact"! 
 And in this way he hopes to pass off a' 
 plausible gloss, as satisfying the words 
 of the instrument. But he will find 
 himself disappointed. Sir, I must say 
 to the honorable gentleman, that, in our 
 American political grammar, Coxstitu- 
 Tio.v is a noun substantive; it imports a 
 distinct and clear idea of itself; and it 
 is not to lose its importance and dignity, 
 it is not to be turned into a poor, am- 
 biguous, senseless, unmeaning adjective, 
 for the purpose of accommodating any 
 new set of political notions. Sir, we 
 reject his new rules of syntax altogether. 
 We will not give up our forms of politi- 
 cal speech to the grammarians of the 
 school of nullification. By the Consti- 
 tution, we mean, not a "constitutional 
 compact," but, simply and directly, the 
 Constitution, the fundamental law; and 
 if there be one word in the language 
 which the people of the United States 
 understand, this is that word. We know 
 no more of a constitutional compact be- 
 tween sovereign powers, than we know 
 
276 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A CO-MPACT 
 
 of a ronstitutional indenture of copail;- 
 nership, a constitutional deed of convey- 
 ance, or a constitutional bill of exchange. 
 But we know what the Constitution is; 
 we know wliat the phiinly written funda- 
 mental law is ; we know what the bond 
 of our Union and the security of our 
 liberties is ; and we mean to maintain 
 and to defend it, in its plain sense and 
 unsophisticated meaning. 
 
 The sense of the gentleman's proposi- 
 tion, therefore, is not at all affected, one 
 way or the other, by the use of this 
 word. That proposition still is, that 
 our system of government is but a com- 
 pact between the people of separate and 
 sovereign States. 
 
 Was it Mirabeau, Mr. President, or 
 3ome other master of the human pas- 
 sions, who has told us that words are 
 things? They are indeed things, and 
 things of mighty influence, not only in 
 addresses to the passions and high- 
 wrought feelings of mankind, but in 
 the discussion of legal and political 
 questions also; because a just conclu- 
 sion is often avoided, or a false one 
 reached, by the adroit substitution of 
 one phrase, or one word, for another. 
 Of this we have, I think, another ex- 
 ample in the resolutions before us. 
 
 The first resolution declares that the 
 people of the several States " acceded " 
 to the Constitution, or to the constitu- 
 tional compact, as it is called. This 
 word " accede," not found either in the 
 Constitution itself, or in the ratification 
 of it hj any one of the States, has been 
 chosen for use here, doubtless, not with- 
 out a well-considered purpose. 
 
 The natural converse of accession is 
 secession ; and, therefore, when it is 
 stated that the people of the States ac- 
 ceded to the Union, it may be more 
 plausibly argued that they may secede 
 from it. If, in adopting the Constitu- 
 tion, nothing was done but acceding to 
 a compact, nothing would seem neces- 
 sary, in order to break it up, but to 
 secede from the same compact. But 
 the term is wholly out of place. Ac- 
 cession, as a word applied to political 
 a-ssociations, implies coming into a 
 league, treaty, or confederacy, by one 
 
 hitherto a stranger to it; and secession 
 iniijlies departing from such league or 
 confederacy. The people of the United 
 States have used no such form of ex- 
 pression in establishing the present gov- 
 ernment. They do not say that they 
 accede to a league, but they declare thai 
 they ordain and establish a Constitution. 
 Such are the very words of the instru- 
 ment itself; and in all the States, with- 
 out an exception, the language used by 
 their conventions was, that they "■tati- 
 fied the Constitution" ; some of them 
 employing the additional words " as- 
 sented to" and " adopted," but all of 
 them "ratifying." 
 
 There is more importance than may, 
 at first sight, appear, in the introduc- 
 tion of this new word, by the honorable 
 mover of these resolutions. Its adop- 
 tion and use are indispensable to main- 
 tain those premises from which his main 
 conclusion is to be afterwards drawu. 
 But before showing that, allow me to 
 remark, that this phraseology tends to 
 keep out of sight the just view of a pre- 
 vious political history, as well as to sug- 
 gest wrong ideas as to what was actually 
 done when the present Constitution w;i3 
 agreed to. In 17S9, and before this Con- 
 stitution was adopted, the United States 
 had already been in a union, more or 
 less close, for fifteen years. At least as 
 far back as the meeting of the first 
 Congress, in 177-i, they had been in 
 some measure, and for some national 
 purposes, united together. Before the 
 Confederation of 1781, they had de- 
 clared independence jointly, and had 
 carried on the war jointly, Iwth by sea 
 and land ; and this not as separate States, 
 but as one people. AVhen, therefore, 
 they formed that Confederation, and 
 adopted its articles as articles of per- 
 petual union, they did not come togethei 
 for the first time; and therefore they 
 did not speak of the States as acceding 
 to tlie Confederation, although it was a 
 league, and nothing but a league, and 
 rested on nothing but plighted faith for 
 its performance. Yet, even then, the 
 States were not strangers to each otlier; 
 there was a bond of union already sub- 
 1 sisting between them ; they were associ- 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 277 
 
 ated, Tinited SLates; and the object of the 
 Confederation was to make a stronger 
 and better bond of union. Their repre- 
 sentatives deliberated together on these 
 proposed Articles of Confederation, and, 
 being authorized by their respective 
 States, finally " ratified and confirmed " 
 them. Inasmuch as they were already 
 in ^nion, they did not speak of acceding 
 to the new Articles of Confederation, 
 but of ratifying and confirming them; 
 ani this language was not used inad- 
 vertently, because, in the ffame instru- 
 ment, accession is used in its proper 
 sense, when applied to Canada, which 
 was altogether a stranger to the existing 
 union. " Canada," says the eleventh 
 article, ^'acceding to this Confedera- 
 tion, and joining in the measures of 
 the United States, shall be admitted 
 into the Union." 
 
 Having thus used the terms ratify and 
 confirm, even in regard to the old Con- 
 federation, it would have been strange 
 indeed, if the people of the United 
 States, after its formation, and when 
 they came to establish the present Con- 
 stitution, had spoken of the States, or 
 the people of the States, as acceding 
 to this Constitution. Such language 
 would have been ill-suited to the oc- 
 casion. It would have implied an ex- 
 isting separation or disunion among 
 the States, such as never has existed 
 since 1774. No such language, there- 
 fore, was used. The language actually 
 employed is, adopt, ratify, ordain, es- 
 tablish. 
 
 I Therefore, Sir, since any State, before 
 '"she can prove her right to dissolve the 
 Union, must show her authority to undo 
 what has been done, no State is at lib- 
 erty to secede, on the ground that she 
 and other States have done nothing but 
 accede. She must show that she has a 
 right to reverse what has been ordained, 
 to unsettle and overthrow what has been 
 sslahlished, to reject what the people 
 have adopted, and to break up what they 
 have ratified; because these are the 
 terms which express the transactions 
 which have actually taken place. In 
 other words, she must show her right to 
 make a revolution. 
 
 If, Mr. President, in drawing these 
 resolutions, the honorable member had 
 confined himself to the use of constitu- 
 tional language, there would have been 
 a wide and awful hiatus between his 
 premises and his conclusion. Leaving 
 out the two words compact and accession, 
 which are not constitutional modes of 
 expression, and stating the matter pre- 
 cisely as the truth is, his first resolution 
 would have affirmed that the people of 
 the several Slates ratified this Constitution, 
 or form of government. These are the 
 very words of South Carolina herself, in 
 her act of ratification. Let, then, his 
 first resolution tell the exact truth; let 
 it state the fact precisely as it exists; 
 let it say that the people of the several 
 States ratified a constitution, or form of 
 government, and then, Sir, what will 
 become of his inference in his second 
 resolution, which is in these words, viz. 
 " that, as in all other cases of compact 
 among sovereign parties, each has an 
 equal right to judge for itself, as well of 
 the infraction as of the mode and meas- 
 ure of redress"? It is obvious, is it 
 not. Sir? that this conclusion requires 
 for its support quite other premises ; it 
 requires premises which speak of acces- 
 sion and of compact between sovereign 
 powers; and, without such premises, it 
 is altogether unmeaning. 
 
 Mr. President, if the honorable mem- 
 ber will truly state what the people did 
 in forming this Constitution, and then 
 state what they must do if they would 
 now undo what they then did, he will 
 unavoidably state a case of revolution. 
 Let us see if it be not so. He must 
 state, in the first place, that the people 
 of the several States adopted and rati- 
 fied this Constitution, or form of gov- 
 ernment; and, in the next place, he 
 must state that they have a right to 
 undo this; that is to say, that they have 
 a right to discard the form of govern- 
 ment which they have adopted, and to 
 break up the Constitution which they 
 have ratified. Now, Sir, this is neither 
 more nor less than saying that they have 
 a right to make a revolution. To reject 
 an established government, to break up 
 a political constitution, is revolution. 
 
278 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 I deny that any man can state accu- 
 rately wliat was done by the people, in 
 establishing the present Constitution, 
 and then state accurately what the 
 people, or any part of them, must now 
 do to get rid of its obligations, without 
 stating an undeniable case of the over- 
 throw of government. I admit, of 
 course, that the people may, if they 
 choose, overthrow the government. But, 
 then, that is revolution. The doctrine 
 now contended for is, that, by nulUJica- 
 tion, or secession, the obligations and 
 authority of the government may be set 
 aside or rejected, without revolution. 
 But that is what I deny; and what I say 
 is, that no man can state the case with 
 historical accuracy, and in constitutional 
 language, without showing that the 
 honorable gentleman's right, as asserted 
 in his conclusion, is a revolutionary 
 right merely; that it does not and can- 
 not exist under the Constitution, or 
 agreeably to the Constitution, but can 
 come into existence only when the Con- 
 stitution is overthrown. This is the 
 reason. Sir, which makes it necessary to 
 abandon the use of constitutional lan- 
 guage for a new vocabulary, and to sub- 
 stitute, in the place of plain historical 
 facts, a series of assumptions. This is 
 the reason why it is necessary to give 
 new names to things, to speak of the 
 Constitution, not as a constitution, but 
 as a compact, and of the ratifications by 
 the people, not as ratifications, but as 
 acts of accession. 
 
 Sir, I intend to hold the gentleman to 
 the written record. In the discussion 
 of a constitutional question, I intend to 
 impose upon him the restraints of con- 
 stitutional language. The people have 
 ordained a Constitution; can they reject 
 it without revolution? They have es- 
 tablished a form of government; can 
 ihey overthrow it without revolution ? 
 These are the true questions. 
 
 Allow me now, Mr. President, to in- 
 quire further into the extent of the 
 propositions contained in the resolutions, 
 and their necessary consequences. 
 
 Wliere sovereign communities are par- 
 ties, there is no essential diiTerence 
 between a compact, a confederation, and 
 
 a league. They all equally rest on the 
 2>lighted faith of the sovereign party. 
 A league, or confederacy, is but a sub- 
 sisting or continuing treaty. 
 
 The gentleman's resolutions, then, 
 affirm, in effect, that these twenty-four 
 United States are held together only by 
 a subsisting treaty, resting for its fulfil- 
 ment and continuance on no inherent 
 power of its own, but on the plighted 
 faith of each State ; or, in other words, 
 that our Union is but a league; and, as 
 a consequence from this proposition, 
 they further affirm that, as sovereigns 
 are subject to no superior power, tlie 
 States must judge, each for itself, of 
 any alleged violation of the league ; and 
 if such violation be supposed to have 
 occurred, each may adopt any mode or 
 measure of i-edress which it shall think 
 proper. 
 
 Other consequences naturally follow, 
 too, from the main proposition. If a 
 league between sovereign powers have 
 no lijnitation as to the time of its dura- 
 tion, and contain nothing making it 
 perpetual, it subsists only during the 
 good pleasure of the parties, although 
 no violation be complained of. If, in 
 the opinion of either party, it be vio- 
 lated, such party may say that he will 
 no longer fulfil its obligations en his 
 part, but will consider the whole league 
 or compact at an end, although it might 
 be one of its stipulations that it should 
 be perpetual. Upon this principle, the 
 Congress of the United States, in 179S, 
 declared null and void the treaty of alli- 
 ance between the United States and 
 France, though it professed to be a per- 
 petual alliance. 
 
 If the violation of the league be ac- 
 companied with serious injuries, the 
 suffering party, being sole judg« of hig 
 own mode and measure of redress, has 
 a right to indemnify himself by reprisals 
 on the offending members of the league ; 
 and reprisals, if the circumstances of the 
 case require it, may be followed by direct, 
 avowed, and public war. 
 
 The necessary import of the resolu 
 tion, therefore, is, that the United 
 States are connected only by a league ; 
 that it is in the good pleasure of every 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 279 
 
 State to decicltf i^jw long she will choose 
 to remain a member of this league; that 
 any State may determine the extent of 
 her own obligations under it, and accept 
 or reject what shall be decided by the 
 whole; that she may also determine 
 whether her rights have been violated, 
 what is the extent of the injury done 
 her, and what mode and measure of 
 redress her wrongs may make it fit and 
 expedient for her to adopt. The result 
 of the whole is, that any State may 
 secede at pleasure ; that any State may 
 resist a law which she herself may 
 choose to say exceeds the power of Con- 
 gress; and tiiat, as a sovereign power, 
 she may redress her own grievances, by 
 her own arm, at her own discretion. 
 She may make reprisals ; she may cruise 
 against the property of other members 
 of the league; she may authorize cap- 
 tures, and make open war. 
 
 If, Sir, this be our political condition, 
 it is time the people of the United States 
 understood it. Let us look for a mo- 
 ment to the practical consequences of 
 these opinions. One State, holding an 
 embargo law unconstitutional, may de- 
 clare her opinion, and withdraw from 
 the Union. She secedes. Another, 
 forming and expressing the same judg- 
 ment on a law laying duties on imports, 
 may withdraw also. She secedes. And 
 as, in her opinion, money has been taken 
 out of the pockets of her citizens ille- 
 gally, under pretence of this law, and as 
 she has power to redress their wrongs, 
 she may demand satisfaction; and, if 
 refused, she may take it with a strong 
 hand. The gentleman has himself pro- 
 nounced the collection of duties, under 
 existing laws, to be nothing but robberv. 
 ilobbers, of course, may be rightfully 
 dispossessed of the fruits of their flagi- 
 tious crimes; and therefore, reprisals, 
 impositions on the commerce of other 
 States, foreign alliances against them, 
 or open war, are all modes of redress 
 justly open to the discretion and choice 
 of South Carolina; for .she is to judge of 
 her own rights, and to seek satisfaction 
 for her own wrongs, in her own way. 
 
 But, Sir, a third State is of opinion, 
 not only that these laws of imposts are 
 
 constitutional, but that it is the absolute 
 duty of Congress to pass and to main- 
 tain such laws; and that, by omitting 
 to pass and maintain them, its con- 
 stitutional obligations would be grossly 
 disregarded. She herself relinquished 
 the power of protection, she might 
 allege, and allege truly, and gave it 
 up to Congress, on the faith that Con- 
 gress would exercise it. If Congre.ss 
 now refuse to exercise it. Congress does, 
 as she may insist, break the condition of 
 the grant, and thus manifestly violate 
 the Constitution ; and for this violation 
 of the Constitution, she may threaten 
 to secede also. Virginia may .secede, 
 and hold the fortresses in the Chesa- 
 peake. The Western States may secede, 
 and take to their own use the public 
 lands. Louisiana may secede, if she 
 choose, form a foreign alliance, and hold, 
 the mouth of the Mississippi. If one 
 State may secede, ten may do so, twenty- 
 may do so, twenty-three may do so. 
 Sir, as these secessions go on, one after, 
 another, what is to constitute the Unit^ 
 ed States? Whose will be the army? 
 Whose the navy? Who will pay the 
 debts? Who fulfil the public treaties? 
 Who perform the constitutional guaran- 
 ties? Who govern this District and the 
 Territories ? Who retain the public 
 property? 
 
 Mr. President, every man must see 
 that these are all questions which can 
 arise only after a revolution. They pre- 
 suppose the breaking up of the govern- 
 ment. AVhile the Constitution lasts, 
 they are repressed ; they spring up to an- 
 noy and startle us only from its grave. 
 
 The Constitution does not provide for 
 events which must be preceded by ita 
 own destruction. Secessiox, therefore, 
 since it must bring these consequences 
 with it, is REVOLUTioxARV, and nui.m- 
 FiCATioN is equally revolution a uy. 
 AVhat is revolution? Why, Sir, that is 
 revolution which overturns, or controls, 
 or successfully resists, the existing pub 
 lie authority; that which arrests the ex- 
 ercise of the supreme power; that wliich 
 introduces a new paramount authority 
 into the rule of the State. Now, Sir, 
 this is the precise object of nullification 
 
280 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 It attempts to supersede the supreme 
 legislative authority. It arrests the arm 
 of the executive magistrate. It inter- 
 rupts the exercise of the accustomed 
 judicial power. Under the name of an 
 ordinance, it declares null and void, 
 within the State, all the revenue laws of 
 the United States. Is not this revolu- 
 tionary? Sir, so soon as this ordinance 
 shall be carried into effect, a revolution 
 will have commenced in South Carolina. 
 She will have thrown off the authority 
 to which her citizens have heretofore 
 been subject. She will have declared 
 her own opinions and her own will to be 
 above the laws and above the power of 
 those who are intrusted with their ad- 
 ministration. If she makes good these 
 declarations, she is revolutionized. As 
 to her, it is as distinctly a change of the 
 supreme power as the American Revo- 
 lution of 1776. That revolution did not 
 subvert government in all its forms. It 
 did not subvert local laws and muni- 
 cipal administrations. It only threw off 
 the dominion of a power claiming to be 
 superior, and to have a right, in many 
 important respects, to exercise legisla- 
 tive authority. Thinking this authority 
 to have been usurped or abused, the 
 American Colonies, now the United 
 States, bade it defiance, and freed them- 
 selves from it by means of a revolution. 
 But that revolution left them with their 
 own municipal laws still, and the forjns 
 of local government. If Carolina now 
 shall effectually resist the laws of Con- 
 gress; if she shall be her own judge, 
 take her remedy into her own hands, 
 obey the laws of the Union when she 
 pleases and disobey them when she 
 pleases, she will relieve herself from a 
 paramount power as distinctly as the 
 American Colonies did the same thing 
 in 1776. In other words, she will 
 achieve, as to herself, a revolution. 
 
 But, Sir, while practical nullification 
 ill South Carolina would be, as to her- 
 self, actual and distinct revolution, its 
 necessary tendency must also be to 
 spread revolution, and to break up the 
 Constitution, as to all the other States. 
 It strikes a deadly blow at the vital 
 principle of the whole Union. To allow 
 
 State resistance to the laws of Congress 
 to be rightful and proper, to admit nulli- 
 fication in some States, and yet not ex- 
 pect to see a dismemberment of the 
 entire government, appears to me the 
 wildest illusion, and the most extrava- 
 gant folly. The gentleman seems not 
 conscious of the direction or the rapid- 
 ity of his own course. The current 
 of his opinions sweeps him along, h« 
 knows not whither. To begin with 
 nullification, with the avowed intent, 
 nevertheless, not to proceed to secession, 
 dismemberment, and general revolution, 
 is as if one were to take the plunge of 
 Niagara, and cry out that he would stop 
 half-way down. In the one case, as in 
 the other, the rash adventui'er must go 
 to the bottom of the dark abyss below, 
 were it not that that abyss has no dis- 
 covered bottom. 
 
 Xullification, if successful, arrests the 
 power of the law, absolves citizens from 
 their duty, subverts the foundation both 
 of protection and obedience, dispenses 
 with oaths and obligations of allegiance, 
 and elevates another authority to su- 
 preme command. Is not this revolu- 
 tion? And it raises to supreme com- 
 mand four-and-twenty distinct powers, 
 each professing to be under a general 
 government, and yet each setting its 
 laws at defiance at pleasure. Is not this 
 anarchy, as well as revolution? Sir, 
 tlie Constitution of the United States 
 was received as a whole, and for the 
 whole country. If it cannot stand alto- 
 gether, it cannot stand in parts; and if 
 the laws cannot be executed everywhere, 
 they cannot long be executed anywhere. 
 The gentleman very well knows that all 
 duties and imposts must be uniform 
 throughout the countrv. lie knows that 
 we cannot have one rule or one law for 
 South Carolina, and another for other 
 States. He must see, therefore, and 
 does see, and every man sees, that tlie 
 only alternative is a repeal of the laws 
 throughout the whole Union, or their 
 execution in Carolina as well as else- 
 where. And this repeal is demanded 
 because a single State interposes her 
 veto, and threatens resistance! The 
 result of the gentleman's opinion, o» 
 
BET^YEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 281 
 
 ratlier the very text of his doctrine, is, 
 that no act of Congress can bind all the 
 States, the constitutionality of which is 
 not admitted by all; or, in other words, 
 that no single State is bound, against 
 its o\\ni dissent, by a law of imposts. 
 This is precisely the evil experienced 
 under the old Confederation, and for 
 remedy of which tliis Constitution was 
 adopted. The leading object in es- 
 tablishing this government, an object 
 forced on the country by the condition 
 of the times and the absolute necessity 
 of the law, was to give to Congress 
 power to lay and collect imposts icitk- 
 out the consent of particular States. The 
 Revolutionary debt remained unpaid; 
 the rational treasury was bankrupt; the 
 country was destitute of credit; Con- 
 gress issued its requisitions on the 
 States, and the States neglected them; 
 there was no power of coercion but war, 
 Congress could not lay imposts, or other 
 taxes, by its own authority; the whole 
 general government, therefore, was lit- 
 tle more than a name. The Articles of 
 Confederation, as to purposes of revenue 
 and finance, were nearly a dead letter. 
 The country sought to escape from this 
 condition, at once feeble and disgrace- 
 ful, by constituting a government which 
 should have power, of itself, to lay 
 duties and taxes, and to pay the public 
 debt, and provide for the general wel- 
 fare; and to lay these duties and taxes 
 in all the States, without asking the 
 consent of the State governments. This 
 was the very power on which the new 
 Constitution was to depend for all its 
 ability to do good ; and without it, it can 
 be no government, now or at any time. 
 Yet, Sir, it is precisely against this 
 power, so absolutely indispensable to 
 the very being of the government, that 
 South Carolina directs her ordinance. 
 She attacks the government in its au- 
 thority to raise revenue, the very main- 
 spring of the whole system; and if she 
 succeed, every movement of that sys- 
 tem must inevitably cease. It is of no 
 avail that she declares that she does not 
 resist the law as a revenue law, but as 
 a law for protecting manufactures. It 
 is a revenue law ; it is the veiy law by 
 
 force of which the revenue is collected; 
 if it be arrested in any State, the reve- 
 nue ceases in that State; it is, in a 
 word, the sole reliance of the govern- 
 ment for the means of maintaining it- 
 self and performing its duties. 
 
 ISIr. President, the alleged right of a 
 State to decide constitutional questions 
 for herself necessarily leads to force, be- 
 cause other States must have the same 
 right, and because different States will 
 decide differently ; and when these ques- 
 tions arise between States, if there be no 
 superior power, they can be decided only 
 by the law of force. On entering into the 
 Union, the people of each State gave up 
 a part of their own power to make laws 
 for themselves, in consideration, that, 
 as to common objects, they should have 
 a part in making laws for other States. 
 In other words, the people of all the 
 States agreed to create a common gov- 
 ernment, to be conducted by common 
 counsels. Pennsylvania, for example, 
 yielded the right of laying imposts in 
 her own ports, in consideration that the 
 new government, in which she was to 
 have a share, should possess the power 
 of lajang imposts on all the States. If 
 South Carolina now refuses to submit 
 to this power, she breaks the condition 
 on which other States entered into the 
 Union. She partakes of the common 
 counsels, and therein assists to bind 
 others, while she refuses to be bound 
 herself. It makes no difference in the 
 case, whether she does all this without 
 reason or pretext, or whether she sets 
 up as a reason, that, in her judgment, 
 the acts complained of are unconstitu- 
 tional. In the judgment of other States, 
 they are not so. It is nothing to them 
 that she offers some reason or some 
 apology for her condiict, if it le one 
 which they do not admit. It is not to be 
 expected that any State will violate her 
 duty without some plausible pretext. 
 That would be too rash a defiance of 
 the opinion of mankind. But if it be 
 a pretext which lies in her own breast, 
 if it be no more than an opinion which 
 she says she has formed, how can other 
 States be satisfied with this? How can 
 they allow her to be judge of her own 
 
 
282 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 obligations? Or, if she may judge of 
 her obligatious, may they not judge of 
 their rights also? May not the twenty- 
 three entertain an opinion as well as the 
 twenty-fourth? And if it be their right, 
 in their own opinion, as expressed in the 
 coii-mon council, to enforce the law 
 against her, how is she to say that her 
 right and her opinion are to be every 
 thing, and their right and their opinion 
 nothing? 
 
 ^Ir. President, if we are to receive the 
 Constitution as the text, and then to lay 
 down in its margin the contradictory 
 commentaries which have been, and 
 which maybe, made by different States, 
 tlie whole page would be a polyglot in- 
 deed. It would speak with as many 
 tongues as the builders of Babel, and in 
 dialects as much confused, and mutu- 
 ally as unintelligible. The very instance 
 now before us presents a practical illus- 
 tration. The law of the last session is 
 declared unconstitutional in South Car- 
 olina, and obedience to it is refused. 
 In other States, it is admitted to be 
 strictly constitutional. You walk over 
 the limit of its authority, therefore, 
 when you pass a State line. On one side 
 it is law, on the other side a nullity; 
 and yet it is passed by a common gov- 
 ernment, having the same authority in 
 all the States. 
 
 Such, Sir, are the inevitable results of 
 this doctrine. Beginning with the origi- 
 nal error, that the Constitution of the 
 United States is nothing but a compact 
 between sovereign States; asserting, in 
 the next step, that each State has a right 
 to be its own sole judge of the extent of 
 its own obligations, and consequently 
 of the constitutionality of laws of Con- 
 gress; and, in the next, that it may 
 ojipose whatever it sees ht to declare un- 
 constitutional, and that it decides for 
 itself on the mode and measure of re- 
 dress, — the argument arrives at once at 
 the conclusion, that what a State dis- 
 Bents from, it may nullify; what it op- 
 poses, it may oppose by force ; what it 
 decides for itself , it may execute by its 
 own power; and that, in short, it is 
 itself supreme over the legislation of 
 Congress, and supreme over the decis- 
 
 ions of the national judicature ; jupreme 
 over the constitution of the countn', su- 
 preme over the supreme law of the land. 
 However it seeks to protect itself against 
 these plain inferences, by saying tliat 
 an unconstitutional law is no law, and 
 that it only opposes such laws as are un- 
 constitutional, yet this does not in the 
 slightest degree vary the result; since it 
 insists on deciding this question for it- 
 self; and, in opposition to reason and 
 argument, in opposition to practice and 
 experience, in opposition to the judg- 
 ment of others, having an equal right to 
 judge, it says, only, " Such is my opin- 
 ion, and my opinion shall be my law, 
 and I will suppoii it by my own strong 
 hand. I denomice the law; I declare 
 it unconstitutional; that is enough; it 
 shall not be executed. Men in arms are 
 ready to resist its execution. Aji at- 
 tempt to enforce it shall cover the land 
 with blood. Elsewhere it may be bind- 
 ing; but here it is trampled under foot." 
 '^., This, Sir, is practical nullification. ^^^ 
 And now. Sir, against all these theo- 
 ries and opinions, I maintain, — 
 
 1. That the Constitution of the United 
 States is not a league, confederacy, or 
 compact between the people of the sev- 
 eral States in their sovereign capacities ; 
 but a government proper, founded on 
 the adoption of the people, and creating 
 direct relations between itself and indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 2. That no State authority has power 
 to dissolve these relations; that notliing 
 can dissolve them but revolution; and 
 that, consequently, there can be no such 
 thing as secession withoiit revolution. 
 
 3. That there is a supreme law, con- 
 sisting of the Constitution of the United 
 States, and acts of Congress passed in 
 pursuance of it, and treaties; and that, 
 in cases not capable of assuming the 
 chai-acter of a suit in law or equity, 
 Congress must judge of, and finally in- 
 terpret, this supreme law so often as it 
 has occasion to pass acts of legislation; 
 and in cases capable of assuming, and 
 actually assuming, the character of a 
 suit, the Supreme Court of the United 
 States is the final interpreter. 
 
 i. That an attempt by a State to ab- 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 28,^ 
 
 rogate, annul, or nullify an act of Con- 
 gi«ss, or to arrest it? operation within 
 her limits, on the ground that, in her 
 opinion, such law is unconstitutional, is 
 a direct usurpation on the just powers 
 of the general government, and on the 
 equal rights of other States ; a plain vi- 
 olation of the Constitution, and a pro- 
 ceeding essentially revolutionary in its 
 character and tendency. 
 
 Wiiether the Constitution be a com- 
 pact between States in their sovereign 
 capacities, is a question which must be 
 mainly arjped from what is contained 
 in the instnmient itself. We all agree 
 that it is an instrument which has been 
 in some way clothed with power. We 
 all admit that it speaks with authority. 
 The first question then is. What does it 
 say of itself? What does it purport to 
 be? Does it style itself a league, con- 
 federacy, or compact between sovereign 
 States? It is to be remembered. Sir, 
 that the Constitution began to speak 
 only after its adoj)tion. Until it was 
 ratified by nine States, it was but a pro- 
 posal, the mere draught of an instru- 
 ment. It was like a deed drawn, but 
 not executed. The Convention had 
 framed it; sent it to Congi'ess, then sit- 
 ting under the Confederation ; Congress 
 had transmitted it to the State legisla- 
 tures ; and by these last it was laid be- 
 fore conventions of the people in the 
 several States. All this while it was 
 inoperative paper. It had received no 
 stamp of authority, no sanction; it 
 spoke no language. But when ratified 
 by the people in their respective conven- 
 tions, then it had a voice, and spoke au- 
 thentically. Every word in it had then 
 received the sanction of the popular 
 will, and was to be received as the ex- 
 pression of that will. What the Con- 
 stitution says of itself, therefore, is as 
 conclusive as what it says on any other 
 point. Does it call itself a " compact "? 
 Certainly not. It uses the word compact 
 but once, and that is when it declares 
 that the States shaU enter into no com- 
 pact. Does it call itself a " league," a 
 " confederacy,'' a " subsisting treaty 
 between the States"? Certainly not. 
 There is not a particle of such language 
 
 in all its pages. But it declares itself a 
 Co.vsTiTUTiox. Wiiat is a constitution f 
 Certainly not a league, compact, or con- 
 federacy, but a fundamental law. That 
 fundamental regulation which deter- 
 mines the manner in which the public 
 authority is to be executed, is what 
 forms the conntilulion of a state. Those 
 primaiy rules which concern the body 
 itself, and the very being of the politi- 
 cal society, the form of government, and 
 the manner in which power is to be ex- 
 ercised, — all, in a word, which form 
 together the constitution of a stale, — 
 these are the fundamental laws. This, 
 Sir, is the language of the public WTit- 
 ers. But do we need to be informed, 
 in this country, what a constitution is? 
 Is it not an idea perfectly familiar, defi- 
 nite, and well settled? We are at no 
 loss to understand what is meant by the 
 constitution of one of the States; and 
 the Constitution of the United States 
 speaks of itself as being an instrument 
 of the same nature. It says this Con- 
 stitution shall be the law of the land, any 
 thing in any State constitution to the 
 contrary notwithstandmg. And it sjieaks 
 of itself, too, in plain contradistinction 
 from a confederation; for it says that 
 all debts contracted, and all engagements 
 entered into, by the United States, shall 
 b*e as valid under this Constitution as 
 under the Confederation. It does not 
 say, as valid under this compact, or this 
 league, or this confederation, as under 
 the former confederation, but as valid 
 under this Constitution. 
 
 This, then. Sir, is declared to be a 
 constitution. A constitution is the fun- 
 damental law of the state; and this ia 
 expressly declared to be the supreme 
 law. It is as if the people had said, 
 " We prescribe this fundamental law," 
 or " this supreme law," for they do say 
 that they establish this Constitution, 
 and that it shall be the supreme law. 
 They say that they ordain and estahlish it. 
 Xow, Sir, what is the common applica- 
 tion of these words? We do not speak 
 of ordaining leagues and compacts. If 
 this was intended to be a compact or 
 league, and the States to be parties to it, 
 why was it not so said? Why is there 
 
'J84 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 found no one expression in the whole in- 
 Btrument indicating such intent? The 
 old Confederation was expressly called a 
 league, and into this league it was de- 
 clared tliat the States, as States, severally 
 entered. Why was not similar language 
 used in the Constitution, if a similar in- 
 tenticn had existed? Why was it not 
 eaid, "the States enter into this new 
 'eagiie," " the States form this new con- 
 federation," or " the States agi-eetothis 
 nev" compact "? Or why was it not said, 
 in the language of the gentleman's res- 
 olution, that the people of the several 
 States acceded to this compact in their 
 sovereign capacities? What reason is 
 there for supposing that the framers of 
 the Constitution rejected expressions 
 appropriate to their own meaning, and 
 adopted others wholly at war with that 
 meaning? 
 
 Again, Sir, the Constitution speaks 
 of that political system which is estab- 
 lished as " the government of the United 
 States." Is it not doing strange vio- 
 lence to language to call a league or 
 a compact between sovereign powers a 
 government^ The government of a state 
 is that organization in which the politi- 
 cal power resides. It is the political 
 being created by the constitution or 
 fundamental law. The broad and clear 
 difference between a government and a 
 league or compact is, that a government 
 is a body politic; it has a will of its 
 own; and it possesses powers and facul- 
 ties to execute its own purposes. Every 
 compact looks to some power to enforce 
 its stipulations. Even in a compact 
 between sovereign communities, there 
 always exists this ultimate reference to a 
 power to insure its execution; although, 
 in g'.ich case, this power is but the force 
 af one party against tlie force of an- 
 other; that is to say, the power of war. 
 IJut a gnvernment executes its decisions 
 by its own supreme authority. Its use 
 of force in compelling obedience to its 
 own enactments is not war. It contem- 
 plates no opposing party having a right 
 of resistance. It rests on its own power 
 to enforce its own will; and when it 
 ceases to possess this power, it is no 
 longer a government. 
 
 ^Ir. President, T concur so generally 
 in the very able speech of the gentleman 
 from Virginia near me,^ that it is not 
 without dithdence and regret that I ven- 
 ture to differ with him on any point. 
 His opinions, Sir, are redolent of the 
 doctrines of a very distinguished school, 
 for which I have the highest regard, of 
 whose doctrines I can say, what I can 
 also say of tlie gentleman's speech, that, 
 while I concur in the results, I must be 
 permitted to hesitate about some of the 
 premises. I do not agree that the Con- 
 stitution is a compact between States in 
 their sovereign capacities. I do not 
 agree, that, in strictness of language, it 
 is a compact at all. But I do agrea 
 that it is founded on consent or agree- 
 ment, or on compact, if the gentleman 
 prefers that word, and means no more 
 by it than voluntary consent or agree- 
 ment. The Constitution, Sir, is not a 
 contract, but the result of a contract; 
 meaning by contract no more than as- 
 sent. Founded on consent, it is a 
 government proper. Adopted by the 
 agreement of the people of the United 
 States, when adopted, it has become a 
 Constitution. The people have agreed 
 to make a Constitution; but when made, 
 that Constitution becomes what its name 
 imports. It is no longer a mere agree- 
 ment. Our laws. Sir, have their foun- 
 dation in the agreement or consent of 
 the two houses of Congress. We say, 
 habitually, that one house proposes a 
 bill, and the other agrees to it; but the 
 result of this agreement is not a com- 
 pact, but a law. Tlie law, the statute, 
 is not the agreement, but something 
 created by the agreement; and some- 
 thing which, when created, has a new 
 character, and acts by its own author- 
 ity. So the Constitution of the United 
 States, founded in or on the consent of 
 the people, may be said to rest on com- 
 pact or consent ; but it is not itself the 
 compact, but its result. Wlien the peo- 
 ple agree to erect a government, and 
 actually erect it, the thing is done, and 
 the agreement is at an end. The com- 
 pact is executed, and the end designed 
 by it attained. Henceforth, the fruit 
 1 Mr- Rives. 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 285 
 
 of the agreement exists, but the agree- 
 ment itself is merged in its own accom- 
 plishment; since there can be no longer 
 a subsisting agreement or compact to 
 form a constitution or government, after 
 that constitution or government has been 
 actually formed and established. 
 
 It appears to me, i\Ir. President, that 
 the plainest account of the establish- 
 ment of this government presents the 
 most just and philosophical view of its 
 foundation. The people of the several 
 States had their separate State govern- 
 ments; and between the States there 
 also existed a Confederation. With this 
 condition of things the people were not 
 satisfied, as the Confederation had been 
 found not to fulfil its intended objects. 
 It was proposed., therefore, to erect a 
 new, common government, which should 
 possess certain definite powers, such as 
 regarded the prosperity of the people of 
 all the States, and to be formed upon 
 the general model of Ainerican consti- 
 tutions. This proposal was assented 
 to, and an instrument was presented to 
 the people of the several States for their 
 consideration. They approved it, and 
 agreed to adopt it, as a Constitution. 
 They executed that agreement; they 
 adopted the Constitution as a Constitu- 
 tion, and henceforth it must stand as a 
 Constitution until it shall be altogether 
 destroyed. Xow, Sir, is not tliis the 
 truth of the whole matter? And is not 
 all that we have heard of compact be- 
 tween sovereign States the mere effect 
 of a theoretical and artificial mode of 
 reasoning upon the subject? a mode of 
 reasoning ■which disregards plain facts 
 for the sake of hypothesis? 
 
 Mr. President, the nature of sover- 
 eignty or sovereign power has been ex- 
 tensively discussed by gentlemen on this 
 occasion, as it generally is when the ori- 
 gin of our government is debated. But 
 I confess myself not entirely satisfied 
 with arguments and illustrations drawn 
 from that topic. The sovereignty of 
 government is an idea belonging to the 
 other side of the Atlantic. No such 
 thing is known in North America. Our 
 governments are all limited. In Eu- 
 rope, sovereignty is of feudal origin, 
 
 and imports no more than the state of 
 the sovereign. It comprises his rights, 
 duties, exemptions, prerogatives, and 
 powers. But with us, all power is with 
 the people. They alone are sovereign ; 
 and they erect what governments they 
 please, and confer on them such powers 
 as they please. None of these govern- 
 ments is sovereign, in the European 
 sense of the word, all being restrained 
 by written constitutions. It seems to 
 me, therefore, that we only perplex our- 
 selves when we attempt to explain the 
 relations existing between the general 
 govermnent and the several State gov- 
 ernments, according to those ideas of 
 sovereignty which prevail under systems 
 essentially different from our own. 
 
 But, Sir, to return to the Constitu- 
 tion itself; let me inquire what it relies 
 upon for its own continuance and sup- 
 port. I hear it often suggested, that 
 the States, by refusing to appoint Sena- 
 tors and Electors, might bring this gov- 
 ernment to an end. Perhaps that is 
 true ; but the same may be said of the 
 State governments themselves. Sup- 
 pose the legislature of a State, having 
 the power to appoint the governor and 
 the judges, should omit that duty, would 
 not the State government remain unor- 
 ganized? No doubt, all elective govern- 
 ments may be broken up by a general 
 abandonment, on the part of those in- 
 trusted with political powers, of their 
 appropriate duties. But one popular 
 government has, in this respect, aa 
 much security as another. The main- 
 tenance of this Constitution does not 
 depend on tlie plighted faith of tlie 
 States, as States, to support it; and this 
 again shows that it is not a league. It 
 relies on individual duty and obliga- 
 tion. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States 
 creates direct relations between this 
 government and individuals. This gov- 
 ernment may punish individuals for 
 treason, and all oth^" crimes in the 
 code, when committed against the Unit- 
 ed States. It has power, also, to tax 
 individuals, in any mode, and to any 
 extent; and it possesses the further 
 power of demanding from individuals 
 
286 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 military service. Xothing, certainly, 
 can more clearly distinguish a govern- 
 ment from a confederation of states 
 than the possession of these powers. 
 No closer relations can exist between 
 indi\-iduals and any government. 
 
 On the other hand, the government 
 owes high and solemn duties to every 
 citizen of the country. It is bound to 
 protect him in his most important rights 
 and interests. It makes war for his 
 protection, and no other government in 
 the country can make war. It makes 
 peace for his protection, and no other 
 government can make peace. It main- 
 tains armies and navies for his defence 
 and security, and no other government 
 is allowed to maintain them. He goes 
 abroad beneath its flag, and carries over 
 all the earth a national character im- 
 parted to him by this government, and 
 ■which no other government can impart. 
 In whatever relates to war, to peace, to 
 commerce, he knows no other govern- 
 ment. All these, Sir, are connections 
 as dear and as sacred as can bind indi- 
 viduals to any government on earth. 
 It is not, therefore, a compact between 
 States, but a government proper, operat- 
 ing directly upon individuals, yielding 
 to them protection on the one hand, 
 and demanding from them obedience on 
 the other. 
 
 There is no language in the whole 
 Constitution applicable to a confedera- 
 tion of States. If the States be parties, 
 as States, what are their rights, and 
 what their respective covenants and stip- 
 ulations? And where are their rifrhts, 
 covenants, and stipulations expressed? 
 The States engage for nothing, they 
 promise nothing. In the Articles of 
 Confederation, they did make promises, 
 and (lid enter into engagements, and did 
 plight the faith of each State for their 
 fulfilment; but in the Constitution there 
 is nothing of that kind. The reason is, 
 that, in the Constitution, it is the people 
 who speak, and not the States. The 
 people ordain the Constitution, and 
 therein address themselves to the States, 
 and to the legislatures of the States, in 
 the language of injunction and prohibi- 
 tion. The Constitution utters its be- 
 
 hests in the name and by authoiity of 
 the people, and it does not exact from 
 States any plighted public faith to main- 
 tain it. On the contrary, it makes ita 
 own preservation depend on individual 
 duty and individual obligation. Sir, 
 the States cannot omit to appoint Sena- 
 tors and Electors. It is not a matter 
 resting in State discretion or State pleas- 
 ure. The Constitution ha,s taken better 
 care of its own preservation. It lays its 
 hand on individual conscience and indi- 
 vidual duty. It incapacitates any man 
 to sit in the legislature of a State, who 
 shall not first have taken his solemn 
 oath to support the Constitution of the 
 United States. From the obligation of 
 this oath, no State power can discharge 
 him. All the members of all the State 
 legislatures are as religiously bound to 
 support the Constitution of the United 
 States as they are to support their own 
 State constitution. Xay, Sir, they are 
 as solemnly sworn to support it as we 
 ourselves are, who are members of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 No member of a State legislature can 
 refuse to proceed, at the proper time, 
 to elect Senators to Congress, or to pro- 
 vide for the choice of Electors of Presi- 
 dent and Vice-President, anj- more than 
 the members of this Senate can refuse, 
 when the appointed day arrives, to meet 
 the members of the other house, to 
 count the votes for those officers, and 
 ascertain who are chosen. In both 
 cases, the duty binds, and with equal 
 strength, the conscience of the individ- 
 ual member, and it is imposed on all by 
 an oath in the same words. Let it theu 
 never be said. Sir, that it is a matter of 
 discretion with the States whether they 
 will continue the government, or break 
 it up by refusing to appoint Senators 
 and to elect Electors. They have no 
 discretion in the matter. The members 
 of their legislatures cannot avoid doing 
 either, so often as the time arrives, with- 
 out a direct violation of their duty and 
 their oaths; such a violation as would 
 break up any other government. 
 
 Looking still further to the provisions 
 of the Constitution itself, in order to 
 learn its true character, we find its great 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES 
 
 287 
 
 apparent purpose to be, to unite the peo- 
 ple of all the 8tates under one general 
 government, for certain definite objects, 
 and, to the extent of this union, to ro- 
 Btrain the separate authority of the States. 
 Congress only can declare war; tln^re- 
 fore, when one State is at war with a 
 foreign nation, all must be at -war. Tiie 
 President and the Senate only can make 
 peace; when peace is made for one 
 State, therefore, it must be made for 
 all. 
 
 Can any thing be conceived more pre- 
 posterous, than that any State should 
 have power to nullify the proceedings 
 of the general government respecting 
 peace and war? When war is declared 
 by a law of Congress, can a single State 
 nullify that law, and remain at peace? 
 And yet she may inillify that law as 
 well as any other. If the President 
 and Senate make peace, may one State, 
 nevertheless, continue the war? And 
 yet, if she can nullify a law, she may 
 ^uite as well nullify a treaty. 
 
 The truth is, Mr. President, and no 
 ingenuity of argument, no subtilty of 
 distinction can evade it, that, as to cer- 
 \l tain purposes, the people of the United 
 \ States are one people. They are one 
 ^ in making war, and one in making 
 I peace; they are one in regulating com- 
 / merce, and one in laying duties of ini- 
 ^ posts. The very end and purpose of the 
 Constitution was, to make them one 
 people in these particulars; and it has 
 eifectually accomplished its object. All 
 tliis is apparent on the face of the Con- 
 stitution itself. I have already said. 
 Sir, that to obtain a power of direct 
 legislation over the people, especially in 
 regard to imposts, was always promi- 
 nent as a reason for getting rid of the 
 Confederation, and forming a new Con- 
 stitution. Among innumerable proofs 
 of this, before the assembling of the 
 Convention, allow me to refer only to 
 the report of the connnittee of the old 
 Congress, July, 1785. 
 
 But, Sir, let us go to the actual forma- 
 tion of the Constitution; let us open 
 tlie joiu-nal of the Convention itself, and 
 we shall see that the very first resolu- 
 tion which the Convention adopted was, 
 
 "That a national GOVF.nxMENT 
 
 OUGHT TO BE ESTAULISHED, CO.VSI.ST- 
 ING OF A SUPREME LEGISI.ATUKE, ,JU- 
 DICIAUY, AND EXECUTIVE." 
 
 Tliis itself comjjletely negatives all 
 idea of league, and compact, and con- 
 federation. Terms could not be cho.seu 
 more fit to express an intention to estab- 
 lish a national government, and to ban- 
 ish for ever all notion of a compact 
 between sovereign States. 
 
 This resolution was adopted on the 
 30th of May, 1787. Afterwards, the 
 style was altered, and, instead of being 
 called a national government, it was 
 called the government of the United 
 States; but the substance of this res- 
 olution was retained, and was at the 
 head of that list of resolutions which 
 was afterwards sent to the committee 
 who were to frame the instrument. 
 
 It is true, there were gentlemen in 
 the Convention, who were for re taming 
 the Confederation, and amending its 
 Articles; but the majority was against 
 this, and was for a national govern- l^ 
 ment. ^Ir. Patterson's propositions, 
 which were for continuing the Arti- 
 cles of Confederation with additional 
 powers, were submitted to the Conven- 
 tion on the 15th of June, and referred 
 to the committee of the whole. Th*> 
 resolutions forming the basis of a na- 
 tional govenmient, which had once 
 been agreed to in the committee of the 
 whole, and reported, were recommitted 
 to the same committee, on the same . 
 day. The Convention, then, in com- 
 mittee of the whole, on the 19th of 
 June, had both these plans before them; 
 that is to saj% the plan of a confeder 
 acy, or compact, between States, and 
 the plan of a national government. 
 Both these plans were considered and 
 debated, and the committee reported, 
 " That they do not agree to the proposi- 
 tions offered by the honorable Mr. Pat- 
 terson, but that they again submit the 
 resolutions formerly reported." If, Sir, 
 any historical fact in the world be plain 
 and undeniable, it is that the Convention 
 deliberated on the expediency of con- 
 tinuing the Confederation, with soma 
 amendments, and rejected that scheme; 
 
288 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 and adopted the plan of a national 
 government, with a legislature, an ex- 
 ecutive, and a judiciary of its o^\'n. 
 They were asked to preserve the league; 
 they rejected the proposition. They 
 were asked to continue the existing 
 compact between States; they rejected 
 it. They rejected compact, league, and 
 confederation, and set themselves about 
 framing the constitution of a national 
 government; and they accomplished 
 what they undertook. 
 
 If men will open their eyes fairly to 
 the lights of history, it is impossible to 
 be deceived ou this point. The great 
 object was to supersede the Confedera- 
 tion by a regular government; because, 
 under the Confederation, Congress had 
 power only to make requisitions on 
 States; and if States declined compli- 
 ance, as they did, there was no remedy 
 but war against such delinquent States. 
 It would seem, from Mr. Jefferson's 
 correspondence, in 1786 and 1787, that 
 he was of opinion that even this remedy 
 ought to be tried. "There will be no 
 money in the treasury," said he, "till 
 the confederacy shows its teeth"; and 
 he suggests that a single frigate would 
 soon levy, on the commerce of a delin- 
 quent State, the deficiency of its contri- 
 bution. But this would be war; and it 
 was evident that a confederacy could 
 not long hold together, which should be 
 at war with its members. The Consti- 
 tution was adopted to avoid tliis neces- 
 sity. It was adopted that there might 
 be a government which should act di- 
 rectly on individuals, without borrow- 
 ing aid from the State governments. 
 This is clear as light itself on the very 
 face of the provisions of the Constitu- 
 tion, and its whole history tends to the 
 same conclusion. Its framers gave this 
 very reason for their work in the most 
 distinct terms. Allow me to quote but 
 one or two proofs, out of hundreds. 
 That State, so small in territory, but 
 so distinguished for learning and talent, 
 Connecticut, had sent to the general 
 Convention, among other members, 
 Samuel .Johnston and Oliver Ellsworth. 
 The Constitution having been framed, 
 it was submitted to a convention of the 
 
 people of Connecticut for ratification on 
 the part of that State; and Mr. John- 
 ston and Mr. Ellsworth were also mem- 
 bers of this convention. On the firs' 
 day of the debates, being called on tc 
 explain the reasons which led the Con- 
 vention at Philadelphia to recommend 
 such a Constitution, after showing the 
 insufficiency of the existing confeder- 
 acy, inasmuch as it applied to States, 
 as States, Mr. Johnston proceeded to 
 say: — 
 
 " The Convention saw this imperfection 
 in attempting to legislate for States in tlieir 
 political capacity, that the coercion of hiw 
 can be exercised by nothing but a military 
 force. Tliey liave, therefore, gone upon 
 entirely new ground, 'i'liey liave fornu'd 
 one new nation out of the individual 
 States. The Constitution vests in the 
 general legislature a power to make laws 
 in matters of national concern ; to appoint 
 judges to decide upon these laws ; and to 
 appoint officers to carry tliem into execu- 
 tion. This excludes the idea of an armed 
 force. The power which is to enforce 
 these laws is to be a legal power, vested in 
 proper magistrates. The force wliich is to 
 be employed is the energy of law ; and 
 this force is to operate only upon indivld- 
 uals who fail in their duty to their coun- 
 try. This is the peculiar glory of the*-^ 
 Constitution, that it depends upon the mild « 
 and equal energy of the magistracy for : 
 the execution of the laws." 
 
 In the further course of the debate, 
 Mr. Ellsworth said : — 
 
 " In republics, it is a fundamental princi- 
 ple, that the majority govern, and that the 
 minority comply with the general voice. 
 How contrary, then, to republican princi- 
 ples, how humiliating, is our present situa- 
 tion ! A single State can rise up. and put 
 a veto upon the most important public 
 measures. We have seen this aitually 
 take place; a single State has controlled 
 the general voice of the Union ; a minority, 
 a very small minority, has governed us. 
 So far is this from being consistent with 
 republican principles, that it is, in effect, 
 the worst species of monarchy. 
 
 " Hence we see how necessary for the 
 Union is a coercive prineiple. No man pre- 
 tends the contrary. We all see and feel 
 this necessity. The only question is, Shall 
 it be a coercion of law, or a coercion of 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 28D 
 
 erms ? There is no other possible alterna- 
 tive. Where will those who oppose a co- 
 ercion of law conic out"? Wliere will they 
 end ? A necessary consequence of their 
 principles is a war of the States one against 
 another. I am for coercion by law ; that 
 coercion whicli acts only upon ik-liiiqucnt 
 individuals. This Constitution does not 
 attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, States, 
 in their political capacity. No coercion is 
 cpplicable to such bodies, but that of an 
 urmed force. If we should attempt to exe- 
 cute the laws of the Union by sending an 
 armed force against a delinquent State, it 
 would involve the good and bad, the inno- 
 cent and guilty, in the same calamity. But 
 this legal coercion singles out the guilty 
 individual, and punishes him for breaking 
 the laws of the Union." 
 
 Indeed, Sir, if we look to all contem- 
 porary history, to the numbers of the 
 Federalist, to the debates in the con- 
 ventions, to the publications of friends 
 and foes, they all agree, that a change 
 had been made from a confederacy of 
 States to a different system; they all 
 agree, that the Convention had formed 
 a Constitution for a national govern- 
 ment. With this result some were satis- 
 fied, and some were dissatisfied; but all 
 admitted that the thing had been done. 
 In none of these various productions and 
 publications did any one intimate that 
 the new Constitution was but another 
 compact between States in their sover- 
 eign capacities. I do not find such an 
 opinion advanced in a single instance. 
 Everywhere, the people were told that 
 the old Confederation was to be aban- 
 doned, and a new system to be tried; 
 that a proper government was proposed, 
 to be founded in the name of the people, 
 and to have a regular organization of its 
 own. Everywhere, the people were told 
 that it was to be a government with 
 direct powers to make laws over individ- 
 uals, and to lay taxes and imposts with- 
 out the consent of the States. Every- 
 wliere, it was understood to be a popular 
 Constitution. It came to the people for 
 their adoption, and was to rest on the 
 same deep foundation as the State 
 constitutions themselves. Its most dis- 
 tinguislied advocates, who had been 
 themselves members of the Convention, 
 
 declared that the very object of submit- 
 ting the Constitution to the people was, 
 to preclude the possibility of its being 
 regarded as a mere compact. " However 
 gross a heresy," say the writers of the 
 Federalist, "it may be to maintain 
 that a party to a compact has a right to 
 revoke that compact, the doctrine itself 
 has had respectable advocates. The po.<j- 
 sibility of a question of this nature 
 proves the necessity of laying the foun- 
 dations of our national government 
 deeper than in the mere sanction of 
 delegated authority. The fabric of 
 American empire ought to rest on the 
 solid basis of thk consent of the 
 
 PEOPLE." 
 
 Such is the language. Sir, addressed 
 to the people, while they j'et had the 
 Constitution under consideration. The 
 powers conferred on the new govern- 
 ment were perfectly well understood to 
 be conferred, not by any State, or the 
 people of any State, but by the people 
 of the United States. Virginia is more 
 explicit, perhaps, in this particular, than 
 any other State. Her convention, as- 
 sembled to ratify the Constitution, "in 
 the name and behalf of the people of 
 Virginia, declare and make known, that 
 the powers granted under the Constitu- 
 tion, heinfi derived from the people of the 
 United States, may be resumed by them 
 whenever the same shall be perverted to 
 their injury or oppression." 
 
 Is this language which describes the 
 formation of a compact between States? 
 or language describing the grant of pow- 
 ers to a new government, by the whole 
 people of the United States? 
 
 Among all the other ratifications, there 
 is not one which speaks of the Constitu- 
 tion as a compact between States. Those 
 of ^lassachusetts and New Hampshire 
 express the transaction, in my opinion, 
 with sufficient accuracy. They recognize 
 the Divine goodness "in affording the 
 PEOPLE OF THE United States an op- 
 portunity of entering into an explicit 
 and .solemn compact with each other, by 
 assenting to and ratifying a new Constitu- 
 tion." You will observe, Sir, that it is 
 the PEOPLE, and not the States, who 
 have entered into this compact; and it 
 
 19 
 
290 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 IS the PKOPLE of all the United States. 
 These conventions, by this form of ex- 
 pression, meant merely to say, that the 
 people of the United States had. by the 
 blessing of Providence, enjoyed the op- 
 portunity of establishing a new Con- 
 stitution, founded in the consent of the 
 people. This consent of the people has 
 been called, by European writers, the 
 social compact ; and, in conformity to this 
 common mode of expression, these con- 
 ventions speak of that assent, on which 
 the new Constitution was to rest, as an 
 explicit and solemn compact, not which 
 the States had entered into with each 
 other, but which the people of the United 
 States had entered into. 
 
 Finally, Sir, how can any man get 
 over the words of the Constitution it- 
 self ? — "We, the people of the 
 United States, do op.daix and es- 
 TAnLis'n THIS Constitution." These 
 words must cease to be a part of the 
 Constitution, they mnst be obliterated 
 from the parchment on which they are 
 wi-itten, before any human ingenuity or 
 human argument can remove the popular 
 basis on which that Constitiition rests, 
 and turn the instrument into a mere 
 compact between sovereign States. 
 
 The second proposition. Sir, which I 
 propose to maintain, is, that no State 
 authority can dissolve the relations sub- 
 sisting between the government of the 
 lTnit«d States and individuals ; that 
 nothing can dissolve these relations but 
 revolution; and that, therefore, there 
 can be no such thing as secession without 
 revolution. All this follows, as it seems 
 to me, as a just consequence, if it be 
 first proved that the Constitution of the 
 United States is a government proper, 
 owing protection to individuals, and en- 
 titled to their obedience. 
 
 The people. Sir, in every State, live 
 under two governments. They owe 
 obedience to both. These governments, 
 though distinct, are not adverse. Kach 
 has its separate sphere, and its peculiar 
 V powers and duties. It is not a contest 
 botween two sovereigns for the same 
 power, like the wars of the rival houses 
 in England ; nor is it a dispute between 
 
 a government de facto and a govern 
 ment de jure. It is the case of a divis- 
 ion of powers between two governments, 
 made by the people, to whom both are 
 responsible. Neither can dispense -w ith 
 the dutj' which individuals owe to the 
 other; neither can call itself master of 
 the other: the people are masters of 
 both. This division of power, it is true, 
 is in a great measure unknown in Europe 
 It is the peculiar system of America; 
 and, though new and singular, it is not 
 incomprehensible. The State constitu- 
 tions are established by the people of 
 the States. This Constitution is estab- 
 lished by the people of all the States 
 How, then, can a State secede? IIow 
 can a State imdo what the whole people 
 have done? IIow can she absolve her 
 citizens from their obedience to the laws 
 of the United .States? IIow can she annul 
 their obligations and oaths? IIow can 
 the members of her legislature renounce 
 their own oaths? Sir, sece.ssion, as a 
 revolutionary right, is intelligible; as a 
 right to be proclaimed in the midst of 
 civil commotions, and asserted at the 
 head of armies, I can understand it. 
 But as a practical right, existing under 
 the Constitution, and in conformity with 
 its provisions, it seems to me to be noth- 
 ing but a plain absurdity; for it sup- 
 poses resistance to government, under 
 the authority of government itself; it 
 supposes dismemberment, without vio- 
 lating the principles of union; it sup- 
 poses opposition to law, -without crime; 
 it supposes the violation of oaths, with- 
 out responsibility- ; it supposes the totai 
 overthrow of government, without revo- 
 lution. 
 
 The Constitution, Sir, regards itself 
 as pei-petual and immortal. It seeks to 
 establish a tmion among the people of 
 the States, which shall last through all 
 time. Or, if the common fate of things 
 hinnan must be expected at some period 
 to happen to it, yet that catastrophe is 
 not anticipated. 
 
 The histrument contains ample pro- 
 visions for its amendment, at all times; 
 none for its abandonment, at any time. 
 It declares that new States may come 
 into the Union, but it does not declare 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 291 
 
 ihat old States tuay go out. The Union 
 is not a temporaiy partnersliip of States. 
 It is tlie association of the people, under 
 a constitution of government, uniting 
 their power, joining together their high- 
 est interests, cementing their present 
 enjoyments, and blending, in one indi- 
 visible mass, all their hopes for the fu- 
 ture. Whatsoever is steadfast in just 
 politi33l principles; whatsoever is per- 
 manent in the structm-e of human so- 
 ciety; whatsoever there is which can 
 derive an enduring character from being 
 founded on deep-laid principles of con- 
 stitutional liberty and on the broad 
 foundations of the public will, — all 
 these unite to entitle this instrument to 
 be regarded as a permanent constitution 
 of government. *•-., 
 
 In the next place, ^Mr. President, I 
 contend that there is a supreme law of 
 the land, consisting of the Constitution, 
 acts of Congress passed in pursuance of 
 it, and the public treaties. This will 
 not be denied, because such are the very 
 words of the Constitution. But I con- 
 tend, further, that it rightfully belongs 
 to Congress, and to the courts of the 
 United States, to settle the construction 
 of this supreme law, in doubtful cases. 
 This is denied; and here arises the great 
 practical question, Who is to construe 
 Jinally the Constitution of the United 
 States ? We all agree that the Constitu- 
 tion is the supreme law ; but who shaU 
 interpret that law? In our system of 
 the division of powers between different 
 governments, controversies will neces- 
 sarily sometimes arise, respecting the 
 extent of the powers of each. Who 
 shall decide these controversies? Does 
 it rest with the general government, in 
 all or any of its departments, to exercise 
 the office of final interpreter? Or may 
 each of the States, as well as the gen- 
 eial government, claim this right of ul- 
 timate decision? The practical result 
 of this whole debate turns on this point. 
 The gentleman contends that each State 
 may judge for itself of any alleged vio- 
 lation of the Constitution, and may 
 finally decide for itself, and may exe- 
 cute its own decisions by its ovn^ power. 
 All the recent proceedings in South Caro- 
 
 lina are founded on this claim of right. 
 Her convention has pronounced the rev- 
 enue laws of the United States uncon- 
 stitutional; and this decision slie does 
 not allow any authority of the Uiiited 
 States to overi'ule or leverse. Of course 
 she rejects the autliority of Congress, 
 because the very object of the ordinance 
 is to reverse the decision of Congress j 
 and she rejects, too, the authority of the 
 courts of tlie United States, because she 
 expressly prohibits all appeal to those 
 courts. It is in order to sustain this as- 
 serted right of being her own judge, tliat 
 she pronounces the Constitution of the 
 United States to be but a compact, to 
 which she is a party, and a sovereign 
 party. If this be established, then the 
 inference is supposed to follow, that, 
 being sovereign, there is no pow-er to 
 control her decision; and her own judg- 
 ment on her own compact is, and must 
 be, conclusive. 
 
 I have already endeavored. Sir, to 
 point out the practical consequences of 
 this doctrine, and to show how utterly 
 inconsistent it is with all ideas of reg- 
 ular government, and how soon its adoi> 
 tion would involve the whole country in 
 revolution and absolute anarchy. I hope 
 it is easy now to show. Sir, that a doc- 
 trine bringing such consequences with it 
 is not well founded ; that it has nothing 
 to stand on but theory and assumption ; 
 and that it is refuted by plain and ex- 
 press constitutional provisions. I think 
 the government of the United Statea 
 does possess, in its appropriate depart- 
 ments, the authority of final decision on 
 questions of disputed power. I think 
 it possesses this authority, both by 
 necessai-y implication and by express 
 grant. 
 
 It will not be denied, Sir, that this 
 authority naturally belongs to all gov- 
 ernments. They all exercise it from 
 necessity, and as a consequence of the 
 exercise of other powers. The State 
 governments themselves possess it, ex- 
 cept in that class of questions which 
 may arise between them and the gen- 
 eral govemment, and in regard to which 
 they have sm-reudered it, as well by the 
 nature of the case as by clear coustitu- 
 

 TITE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 tional provisions. In other and ordi- 
 nary cases, whether a particular law be 
 in conformity tc the constitution of the 
 State is a question wnich the State legis- 
 lature or the State judiciary must deter- 
 mine. We all knoM' that these questions 
 arise daily in the State governments, and 
 are decided by those governments; and 
 I know no government which does not 
 exercise a similar power. 
 
 Upon general principles, then, the gov- 
 ernment of the United States possesses 
 this authority; and this would hardly be 
 denied were it not that there are other 
 governments. But since there are State 
 governments, and since these, like other 
 governments, ordinarily construe their 
 own powers, if the government of the 
 United States consti'ues its own powers 
 also, which construction is to prevail in 
 the case of opposite constructions ? And 
 again, as in the case now actually before 
 us, the State governments may under- 
 take, not only to construe their own 
 powers, but to decide directly on the 
 extent of the powers of Congress. Con- 
 gress has passed a law as being within 
 its just powers; South Carolina denies 
 that this law is within its just powers, 
 and insists that she has the right so to 
 decide this point, and that her decision 
 is final. How are these questions to be 
 settled ? 
 
 In my opinion. Sir, even if the Con- 
 stitution of the United States had made 
 no express provision for such cases, it 
 would yet be difficult to maintain, that, 
 in a Constitution existing over four-and- 
 twenty States, with equal authority' over 
 all, one could claim a riglit of construing 
 it for the whole. This would seem a 
 manifest impropviet}' ; indeed, an ab- 
 surdity. If the Constitution is a gov- 
 ernment existing over all the States, 
 though with limited powers, it necessa- 
 rily follows, that, to the extent of those 
 powers, it must be supreme. If it be 
 not superior to the authority of a partic- 
 ular State, it is not a national govern- 
 ment. But as it is a government, as it 
 has a legislative power of its o\\ti, and a 
 judicial power coextensive with the legis- 
 lative, the inference is irresistible that 
 this government , thus created by the 
 
 whole and for the whole, must have an 
 authority superior to that of the partic- 
 ular government of any one part. Con- 
 gress is the legislature of all the people 
 of the United States; the judician' of 
 the general government is the judiciary 
 of all the people of the United States. 
 To hold, therefore, that this legislatiire 
 and tliis judiciary are subordinate in au- 
 thority to the legislature and judiciary 
 of a single State, is doing violence to 
 all common sense, and overturning all 
 established principles. Congress ra ist 
 judge of the extent of its own powers 
 so often as it is called on to exerciso 
 them, or it cannot act at all; and it 
 must also act independent of State con- 
 trol, or it cannot act at all. 
 
 The riglit of State interposition strikes 
 at the very foundation of the legislative 
 power of Congress. It possesses no ef- 
 fective legislative power, if such right of 
 State interposition exists; because it can 
 pass no law not subject to abrogation. 
 It cannot make laws for the Union, if 
 any part of the Union may pronounce 
 its enactments void and of no effect. 
 Its forms of legislation would be an idle 
 ceremony, if, after all, any one of four- 
 and-twenty States might bid defiance to 
 its authority. "Without express provis- 
 ion in the Constitution, therefore. Sir, 
 this whole question is necessarily decided 
 by those provisions which create a legis- 
 lative power and a judicial power. If 
 these exist in a government intended for 
 the whole, the inevitable consequence is,' 
 that the laws of this legislative power 
 and the decisions of this judicial power 
 must be binding on and over the, wliole. 
 No man can form the conception of 
 a government existing ove? four-and- 
 twenty States, with a regular legislative 
 and judicial power, and of the existence 
 at the same time of an aiithorit\', resid- 
 ing elsewhere, to resist, at pleasure or 
 discretion, the enactments and the de- 
 cisions of such a government. I main- 
 tain, therefore. Sir, that, from tlie na- 
 ture of the case, and as an inference 
 wholly unavoidable, the acts of Congress 
 and the decisions of the national courts 
 must be of higlier authority than State 
 laws and State decisions. If this be not 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 293 
 
 80, ttiere is, there can be, no general 
 government. 
 
 But, Mr. President, the Constitution 
 has not lett this cardinal point without 
 full and explicit provisions. First, as 
 to the authority of Congress. Having 
 enumerated the specific powers con- 
 ferred on Congress, the Constitution 
 adds, as a distinct and substantive 
 clause, the following, viz.: "To make 
 all laws which shall be necessary and 
 proper for carrying into execution the 
 foregoing powers, and all other powers 
 vested by this Constitution in the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, or in any 
 department or officer thereof." If this 
 means any thing, it means that Con- 
 gress may judge of the true extent and 
 just interpretation of the specific powers 
 granted to it, and may judge also of 
 what is necessary and proper for exe- 
 cuting tliose powers. If Congress is to 
 judge of what is necessaiy for the execu- 
 tion of its powers, it must, of necessity, 
 judge of the extent and interpretation of 
 those powers. 
 
 And in regard. Sir, to the judiciaiy, 
 the Constitution is still more express 
 and emphatic. It declares that the ju- 
 dicial power shall extend to all cases in 
 law or equity arising under the Consti- 
 tution, laws of the United States, and 
 treaties ; that there shall be one Supreme 
 Court, and that this Supreme Court shall 
 have appellate jurisdiction of all these 
 cases, subject to such exceptions as Con- 
 gress may make. It is impossible to 
 escape from the generality of these 
 words. If a case arises under the Con- 
 stitution, that is, if a case arises de- 
 pending on the construction of the Con- 
 stitution, the judicial power of the United 
 States extends to it. It reaches the case, 
 the question ; it attaches the power of the 
 national judicature to the case itself, in 
 whatever court it may arise or exist; 
 and in this case the Supreme Coui"t has 
 appellate jurisdiction over all courts 
 whatever. Xo language could provide 
 with mon effect and precision than is 
 here done, for subjecting constitutional 
 questions to the ultimate decision of 
 the Supreme Court. And, Sir, this is 
 exactly what the Convention found it 
 
 necessary to provide for, and intended to 
 provide for. It is, too, exactly what the 
 people were universally told was done 
 when they adopted the Constitution. 
 One of the first resolutions adopted by 
 the Convention was in these words, viz. : 
 " That the jurisdiction of the national 
 judiciary shall extend to cases which re- 
 spect the collection of the national revenue, 
 and questions which involve the national 
 peace and harmony." Xow, Sir, this 
 either had no sensible meaning at all, or 
 else it meant that the jurisdiction of the 
 national judiciaiy should extend to these 
 questions, with a paramount autlioritij. 
 It is not to be supposed that the Con- 
 vention intended that the power of the 
 national judiciary should extend to these 
 questions, and that the power of the ju- 
 dicatm-es of the States should also ex- 
 tend to them, with equal power of final 
 decision. This would be to defeat the 
 whole object of the provision. There 
 were thirteen judicatures already in ex- 
 istence. The evil complained of, or the 
 danger to be guarded against, was con- 
 tradiction and repugnance in the de- 
 cisions of these judicatures. If the 
 framers of the Constitution meant to 
 create a fom-teenth, and yet not to give 
 it power to revise and control the decis- 
 ions of the existing thirteen, then they 
 only intended to augment the existing 
 evil and the apprehended danger by in- 
 creasing still further the chances of dis- 
 cordant judgments. AVhy, Sir, has it 
 become a settled axiom in politics that 
 every government must have a judicial 
 power coextensive with its legislative- 
 power ? Cei'tamly, there is only this 
 reason, namely, that the laws may re- 
 ceive a uniform interpretation and a 
 uniform execution. This object cannot 
 be otherwise attained. A statute is what 
 it is judicially interpreted to be; and if 
 it be construed one way in New Hamp- 
 shire, and another way in Georgia, there 
 is no unifonii law. One supreme com-t, 
 with appellate and final jm'isdiction, is 
 the natural and only adequate means, in 
 any government, to secure this uniform- 
 ity. The Convention saw aU this clearly ; 
 and the resolution which I have quot- 
 ed, never afterwards rescinded, passed 
 
294 
 
 TIIK CONSTITUTION NOT A CO:\IPACT 
 
 through various modifications, till it 
 finally I ecei red the form which the ar- 
 ticle now bears in the Constitution. 
 
 It is undeniably true, then, that the 
 franiers of the Constitution intended to 
 create a national judicial power, which 
 shoidd be paramount on national sub- 
 jects. And after the Constitution was 
 framed, and while the whole country 
 was engaged in discussing its merits, 
 one of its most distinguished advocates, 
 Mr. Madison, told the people that it 
 wan true, that, in controversies rebitinc] to 
 the boundary helween the two jurisdictions, 
 the tribunal which is ultimately to decide 
 is to be established under the general tjor- 
 ernment. Mr. Martin, who had been a 
 member of the Convention, asserted the 
 same thing to the legislature of ^Marj'- 
 land, and urged it as a reason for re- 
 jecting the Constitution. Mr. Pinck- 
 ney, himself also a leading member 
 of the Convention, declared it to the 
 people of South Carolina. Everywhere 
 it was admitted, by friends and foes, 
 that tills power was in the Constitution. 
 Ey some it was thought dangerous, by 
 most it was thought necessary ; but by 
 aU it was agreed to be a power actually 
 contained in the instrument. The Con- 
 vention saw the absolute necessity of 
 some control in the national govern- 
 ment over State laws. Different modes 
 of establishing this control were sug- 
 gested and considered. At one time, it 
 was proposed that the laws of tlie 
 States should, from time to time, be 
 laid before Congress, and that Congress 
 should possess a negative over them. 
 But this was thought inexpedient and 
 inadmissible; and in its place, and ex- 
 pressly as a substitute for it, the exist- 
 ing provision was introduced; that is to 
 say, a provision by which the federal 
 courts should have authority to overrule 
 buch State laws as might be in man- 
 ifest contravention of the Constitution. 
 Tlie writers of the Federalist, in ex- 
 plaining the Constitution, while it was 
 yet pending Viefore the people, and still 
 unadopted, give this account of the 
 matter in terms, and assign this reason 
 for the article as it now stands. By 
 this provision Congress escaped the ne- 
 
 cessity of any revision of Stale lawn, 
 left the whole sphere of State legisla- 
 tion quite untouched, and yet obtained 
 a security against any infringement of 
 the constitutional power of the general 
 government. Indeed, Sir, allow me to 
 ask again, if the national judiciary was 
 not to exercise a power of re\-ision on 
 constitutional questions over the judica- 
 tures of the States, why was any na- 
 tional judicature erected at all? Can 
 any man give a sensible reason for hav • 
 ing a judicial power in this government, 
 unless it be for the sake of maintaining 
 a unifoi-mity of decision on questions 
 arising under the Constitution and laws 
 of Congress, and insuring its execution? 
 And does not this veiy idea of uni- 
 formity necessarily imply that the con- 
 struction given by the national courts 
 is to be the prevailing construction? 
 How else. Sir, is it possible that uni- 
 foimity can be preserved? 
 
 Gentlemen appear to me. Sir, to look 
 at but one side of the question. They 
 regard only the sujiposed danger of 
 trusting a government with the inter- 
 pretation of its owir powers. But will 
 they view the question in its other as- 
 pect? Will they show us how it is 
 possible for a government to get along 
 with fom'-and-twenty interpreters of its 
 laws and powers? Gentlemen argue, 
 too, as il', in these cases, the State 
 would be always right, and the general 
 government always wrong. But sup- 
 pose the reverse, — suppo.se the State 
 wrong (and, since they differ, some of 
 them must be WTong), — are the most 
 important and essential operations of 
 the government to be embarrassed and 
 an'ested, because one State holds the 
 contrary opinion? ^Ir. President, ever> 
 argument which refers the constitution- 
 ality of acts of Congress to State de- 
 cision appeals from the majority to the 
 minority; it appeals from the common 
 interest to a particular interest; from 
 the coimsels of aU to the counsel of one ; 
 and endeavors to supersede the judg- 
 ment of the whole by the judgment of a 
 part. 
 
 I think it is clear, Sir, that the Con- 
 stitution, by express provision, by defi- 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 2i)5 
 
 nite and unequivocal words, as well as 
 by necessary implication, has consti- 
 tuted the Supreme Coui-t of the United 
 States the appellate tribunal in all cases 
 of a constitutional nature which assume 
 the shape of a suit, in law or equity. 
 And I think I cannot do better than to 
 leave this part of the subject by reading 
 the remarks made upon it in the cou- 
 vei tion of Connecticut, by Mr. Ells- 
 worth; a gentleman, Sir, who has left 
 behind him, ou the records of the gov- 
 ernment of his country, proofs of the 
 clearest intelligence and of the deepest 
 sagacity, as well as of the utmost purity 
 and integrity of character. " This Con- 
 stitution," says he, " defines the extent 
 of the powers of the general govern- 
 ment. If the general legislatui-e should, 
 at any time, overleap their limits, the 
 judicial department is a coustitutional 
 check. If the United States go beyond 
 their powers, if they make a law which 
 the Constitution does not authorize, it 
 is void; and the judiciary power, the 
 national judges, who, to secui-e their 
 impartiality, are to be made indepen- 
 dent, will declare it to be void. On the 
 other hand, if the States go beyond 
 their limits, if they make a law which 
 IS a usurpation upon the general gov- 
 ernment, the law is void; and upright, 
 independent judges will declare it to 
 be so." Nor did this remain merely 
 matter of private opinion. In the very 
 fii-st session of the first Congress, with 
 aU these well-known objects, both of 
 the Convention and the people, full and 
 fresh in his mind, Mr. Ellsworth, as is 
 generally understood, reported the biU 
 for the organization of the judicial de- 
 partment, and in that bill made pro- 
 vision for the exercise of this appellate 
 power of the Supreme Court, in all the 
 proper cases, in whatsoever court aris- 
 ing; and this appellate power has now 
 been exercised for more than forty 
 years, without interruption, and with- 
 out doubt. 
 
 As to the cases, Sir, which do not 
 come before the courts, those political 
 questions which terminate with the en- 
 actments of Congress, it is of necessity 
 that these should be ultimately decided 
 
 by Congress itself. Like other legisla- 
 tures, it must be trusted with this 
 power. The members of Congress are 
 chosen by the people, and they are an- 
 swerable to the people ; like other public 
 agents, they are bound by oath to sup- 
 port the Constitution. These are the 
 securities that tliey will not violate their 
 duty, nor transcend tlieir powers. They 
 are the same securities that prevail in 
 other popular governments; nor is it 
 easy to see how grants of power can be 
 more safely guarded, without rendering 
 them nugatory. If the case cannot come 
 before the courts, and if Congress be not 
 trusted with its decision, who shall de- 
 cide it? The gentleman says, each State 
 is to decide it for herself. If so, then, 
 as I have already m-ged, what is law in 
 one State is not law in another. Or, if 
 the resistance of one State compels an 
 entire repeal of the law, then a minor- 
 ity, and that a small one, governs the 
 whole country. 
 
 Sir, those who espouse the doctrines 
 of nullification reject, as it seems to 
 me, the first great principle of all re- 
 publican liberty; that is, that the ma- 
 jority 7}iust govern. In matters of com- 
 mon concern, the judgment of a majority 
 must stand as the judgment of the wliole. 
 This is a law imposed on us by the ab- 
 solute necessity of the case; and if we 
 do not act upon it, there is no possibil- 
 ity of maintaining any government but 
 despotism. We hear loud and repeated 
 denunciations against what is called 
 majoritij government. It is declared, 
 with much warmth, that a majority 
 government cannot be maintained in 
 the United States. "What, then, do gen- 
 tlemen wish? Do they wish to establish 
 a minority government? Do they wish 
 to subject the will of the many to the 
 will of the few? The honorable gentle- 
 man from South Carolina has spoken of 
 absolute majorities and majorities con- 
 current; language wholly unknown to 
 our Constitution, and to which it is not 
 easy to affix definite ideas. As far as I 
 understand it, it would teach us that the 
 absolute majority may be found in Con- 
 gress, but the majority concm-rent nmst 
 be looked for in the States; that is to 
 
29G 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A CO.MI'ACl 
 
 say, Sir, strippiug the matter of this 
 novelty of phrase, that the dissent of 
 one or more States, as States, renders 
 void the decision of a majority of Con- 
 gress, so far as that State is concerned. 
 And so this doctrine, running but a 
 short career, like other dogmas of the 
 day, terminates in nullification. 
 
 If this vehement invective against 
 majcritles meant no more than that, in 
 the construction of government, it is 
 wise to provide checks and balances, so 
 that there should be various limitations 
 on the power of the mere majority, it 
 •would only mean what the Constitution 
 of the United States has already abun- 
 dantly provided. It is full of such 
 checks and balances. In its very or- 
 ganization, it adopts a broad and most 
 effective principle in restraint of the 
 power of mere majorities. A majority 
 of tlie people elects the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, but it does not elect the 
 Senate. The Senate is elected by the 
 States, each State having, in this respect, 
 an equal power. No law, therefore, can 
 pass, without the assent of the represent- 
 atives of the people, and a majority of 
 the representatives of the States also. 
 A majority of the representatives of tlie 
 people must concur, and a majority of 
 the States must concur, in every act of 
 Congress; and the President is elected 
 on a plan compounded of both these priu- 
 ciples. But having composed one house 
 of representatives chosen by the people 
 in each State, according to their num- 
 bers, and the other of an equal number 
 of members from every State, wliether 
 larger or smaller, the Constitution gives 
 to n)ajorities in these houses thus con- 
 stituted the full and entire power of 
 passing laws, subject always to the con- 
 stitutional restrictions and to the ap- 
 proval of the President. To subject 
 them to any other power is clear usurpa- 
 tion. The majority of one house may 
 be controlled by the majority of the 
 otlier; and both may be restrained by 
 tlie President's negative. These are 
 checks and balances provided by the 
 Constitution, existing in the govern- 
 ment itself, and wisely intended to 
 •ccure del'vberatiun and caution in legis- 
 
 lative proceedings. But to resist tne 
 will of the majoiity in both houses, thus 
 constitutionally exercised; to insist on 
 the lawfulness of interixisition by an 
 extraneous power; to claim the right of 
 defeating the will of Congress, by set- 
 ting up against it the will of a single 
 State, — is neither more nor less, as it 
 strikes me, than a plain attempt to 
 overthrow the government. The con- 
 stituted authorities of the United States 
 are no longer a government, if they be 
 not masters of then- own will ; they are 
 no longer a government, if an external 
 power may arrest their proceedings; 
 they are no longer a government, if acta 
 passed by both houses, :ind api)ruved by 
 the President, may be nullified by State 
 vetoes or State ordinances. Does any 
 one suppose it could make any differ- 
 ence, as to the binding authority of an 
 act of Congress, and of the duty of a 
 State to respect it, whether it passed by 
 a mere majority of both houses, or by 
 three fourths of each, or the unanimous 
 vote of each? AVithin the limits and 
 restrictions of the Constitution, the gov- 
 ernment of the United States, like all 
 other popular governments, acts by 
 majorities. It can act no otherwise. 
 Whoever, therefore, denounces the gov- 
 ernment of majorities, denounces the 
 government of his own country, and 
 denounces all free governments. And 
 whoever would restrain these majorities, 
 while acting within their constitutional 
 limits, by an external power, whatever 
 he may intend, asserts principles which, 
 if adopted, can lead to nothing else 
 than the destruction of the government 
 itself. 
 
 Does not the gentleman perceive. Sir, 
 how liis argument against majorities 
 might here be retorted upon him? Does 
 he not see how cogently he might be 
 asked, whether it be the character of nul- 
 lification to practise what it preaches? 
 Look to South Carolina, at the present 
 moment. How far are the rights of 
 minorities there respected? I confess, 
 Sir, I have not known, in peaceable 
 times, the power of tlie majority carried 
 with a higher hand, or upheld with 
 more relentless disregard of the ligiits, 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 297 
 
 teelings and principles of the minority; 
 — a tninoiity embracing, as the gentle- 
 man liimself will admit, a large portion 
 of the worth and rcsiioctahility of tlie 
 State ; — a minority compreliending in its 
 numbers men who have been associated 
 with him, and with us, in these halls of 
 legislation; men who have served their 
 country at home and honored it abroad; 
 men who would cheerfully lay down 
 their lives for their native State, in any 
 cause which they could regard as the 
 cause of honor and duty; men above 
 fear, and above reproach, whose deepest 
 grief and distress spring fronr the con- 
 viction, that the jM-esent proceedings of 
 the State must ultimately reflect discredit 
 upon her. How is this minority, how 
 are these men, regarded? They are en- 
 thralled and disfranchised by ordinances 
 and acts of legislation; subjected to tests ^ 
 and oaths, incompatible, as they con- 
 scientiously think, with oaths already 
 taken, and obligations already assumed; 
 they are proscribed and denounced as 
 recreants to duty and patriotism, and 
 slaves to a foreign power. Both the 
 spirit which pursues them, and the posi- 
 tive measures which emanate from that 
 spirit, are harsh and proscriptive beyond 
 all precedent within my knowledge, ex- 
 cept in periods of professed revolution. 
 
 It is not, Sir, one would think, for 
 those who approve these proceedings to 
 complain of the power of majorities. 
 
 Mr. President, all popular govern- 
 } ments rest on two principles, or two 
 assumptions: — 
 
 First, That there is so far a common 
 interest among those over whom the 
 government extends, as that it may pro- 
 vide for the defence, protection, and 
 good government of the whole, without 
 injustice or oppression to parts; and 
 
 Secondly, That the representatives of 
 the people, and especially the people 
 themselves, are secure against general 
 corruption, and may be trusted, there- 
 fore, with the exercise of power. 
 
 Whoever argues against these princi- 
 ples argues against the practicability of 
 all free governments. And whoever 
 admits these, must admit, or cannot 
 deny, that power is as safe in the hands 
 
 i 
 
 of Congress as in those of other repre- 
 sentative bodies. Congress is not irre- 
 sponsible. Its members are agents of the 
 people, elected by them, answerable to 
 them, and liable to be displaced or super- 
 seded, at their pleasure ; and they possess 
 as fair a claim to the confidence of the 
 people, while tln-y continue to deserve it| 
 as any other public political agents. 
 
 If, then. Sir, the manifest intention 
 of the Convention, and the con tempo 
 raiy admission of both friends and foes, 
 prove any thing; if the plain text of the 
 instrument itself, as well as the neces- 
 sary implication from other provisions, 
 prove any thing; if the early legislation 
 of Congress, the course of judicial decis- 
 ions, acquiesced in by all the States for 
 forty years, prove any thing, — then it 
 is proved that there is a supreme law, 
 and a final interpreter. 
 ^'IMy fourth and last proposition, !Mi. 
 President, was, that any attempt by a 
 State to abrogate or nullify acts of Con- 
 gress is a usurpation on the powers of 
 the general government and on the 
 equal rights of other States, a violation 
 of the Constitution, and a proceeding 
 essentially revolutionary. This is un- 
 doubtedly true, if the preceding propo- 
 sitions be regarded as proved. If the 
 government of the United States be 
 trusted with the duty, in any depart- 
 ment, of declaring the extent of its own 
 piowers, then a State ordinance, or act 
 of legislation, authorizing resistance to 
 an act of Congress, on the alleged ground 
 of its unconstitutionality, is manifestly 
 a usurpation upon its powere. If the 
 States have equal rights in matters con- 
 cerning the whole, then for one State to 
 set up her judgment against the judg- 
 ment of the rest, and to insist on execut- 
 ing that judgment by force, is also a 
 manifest usurpation on the rights of 
 other States. If the Constitution of the 
 United States be a government proper, 
 with authority to pass laws, and to give 
 them a uniform interpretation and exe- 
 cution, then the interposition of a State, 
 to enforce her own construction, and to 
 resist, as to herself, that law which 
 binds the other States, is a violation of 
 the Constitution. 
 
298 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 If that be revolutionaiy which arrests 
 the legislative, executive, and judicial 
 power of government, dispenses with 
 existing oaths and obligations of obedi- 
 ence, and elevates another power to su- 
 preme dominion, then nullification is 
 revolutionary. Or if that be revolution- 
 ary the natural tendency' and practical 
 effect of which are to break the Union 
 into fragments, to sever all connection 
 among the people of the respective 
 States, and to prostrate this general 
 government in the dust, then nullifica- 
 tion is revolutionary. 
 
 Nullification, Sir, is as distinctly rev- 
 olutionary as secession; but I cannot 
 say that the revolution which it seeks is 
 one of so respectable a character. Se- 
 cession would, it is true, abandon the 
 Constitution altogether; but then it 
 would profess to abandon it. What- 
 ever other inconsistencies it might run 
 into, one, at least, it would avoid. It 
 would not belong to a government, 
 while it rejected its authority. It would 
 not repel the burden, and continue to 
 enjoy the benefits. It would not aid in 
 passing laws which others are to obey, 
 and yet reject their authority as to 
 itself. It would not undertake to rec- 
 oncile obedience to public authority 
 with an asserted right of command over 
 that same authority. It would not be in 
 the government, and above the govern- 
 ment, at the same time. But though 
 secession may be a more respectable 
 mode of attaining the object than nullifi- 
 cation, it is not more truly revolutionary. 
 Each, and both, resist the constitutional 
 authorities; each, and both, would sever 
 the Union and subvert the government. 
 
 Mr. President, having detained the 
 Senate so long already, I will not now 
 examine at lengtli the ordinance and 
 laws of South Carolina. These papers 
 are well drawn for their purpose. Their 
 authors understood their own objects. 
 They are called a peaceable remedy, and 
 •we have been told that South Carolina, 
 after all, intends nothing but a lawsuit. 
 A very few words, Sir, will show the 
 natm-e of this peaceable remedy, and of 
 the lawsuit which South Carolina con- 
 temjilates. 
 
 In the first place, the ordinance de- 
 clares the law of last July, and all other 
 laws of the United States laying duties, 
 to be absolutely null and void, and 
 makes it unla^\-ful for the constituted 
 authorities of the United States to en- 
 foice the ijajTneut of such duties. It is 
 therefore. Sir, an indictable offence, at 
 this moment, in South Carolina, for any 
 person to be concerned in collecting 
 revenue under the laws of the United 
 States. It being declared, by what is 
 considered a fundamental law of the 
 State, unlawful to collect these duties, 
 an indictment lies, of com-se, against 
 any one concerned in such collection; 
 and he is, on general principles, liable 
 to be punished by fine and imprison- 
 ment. The terms, it is true, are, that it 
 is unlawful " to enforce the payment of 
 duties"; but every custom-house officer 
 enforces payment while he detains the 
 goods in order to obtain such payment. 
 The ordinance, therefore, reaches every- 
 body concerned in the collection of the 
 duties. 
 
 This is the first step in the prosecu- 
 tion of the peaceable remedy. The 
 second is more decisive. By the act 
 commonly called tlie replevin law, any 
 person whose goods are seized or de- 
 tained by the collector for the papnent 
 of duties may sue out a writ of replevin, 
 and, by virtue of that writ, the goods 
 are to b« restored to him. A writ of 
 replevin is a writ which the sheriff is 
 bound to execute, and for the execution 
 of which he is bound to employ force, if 
 necessary. He may call out the posxe, 
 and must do so, if resistance be made. 
 This posse may be armed or unarmed. 
 It may come forth with military array, 
 and under the lead of military' men. 
 Whatever number of troops may be as- 
 sembled in Charleston, they may be 
 summoned, with tlie governor, or com- 
 mander-in-chief, at their head, to como 
 in aid of the sheriff. It is evident, 
 then. Sir, that the whole military power 
 of the State is to be employed, if neces- 
 sary, in dispossessing the custom-house 
 officers, and in seizing and holding the 
 goods, without pajnng the duties. This is 
 the second step in the peaceable remedy 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 !!'>9 
 
 Sir, wliatever pretences may be set 
 up to the contraiy, this is tlie direct ap- 
 plication of force, and of military force. 
 It is unlawful, in itself, to replevy goods 
 in the custody of the collectors. But 
 this unlawful act is to be done, and it is 
 to be done by power. Here is a plain 
 interposition, by physical force, to resist 
 the laws of the Union. The legal mode 
 of collecting duties is to detain the 
 goods till sucli duties are paid or se- 
 cured, liut force comes, and overpow- 
 ers the collector and his assistants, and 
 takes away the goods, leaving the duties 
 unpaid. There cannot be a clearer case 
 of forcible resistance to law. And it is 
 provided that the goods thus seized shall 
 be held against any attempt to retake 
 them, by the same force which seized 
 them. 
 
 Having thus dispossessed the officers 
 of the government of the goods, with- 
 out payment of duties, and seized and 
 secured them by the strong arm of the 
 State, only one thing more remains to 
 be done, and that is, to cut off all possi- 
 bility of legal redress; and that, too, is 
 accomplished, or thought to be accom- 
 plished. The ordinance declares, that 
 all judicial proceedings, founded on the 
 recenue laws (including, of course, pro- 
 ceedings in the courts of the United 
 States), shall he null and void. This 
 nullities the judicial power of the United 
 States. Then comes the test-oath act. 
 This requires all State judges and jurors 
 in the State courts to swear that they 
 will execute the ordinance, and all acts 
 of the legislature passed in pursuance 
 thereof. The ordinance declares, that 
 no appeal shall be allowed from the de- 
 cision of the State courts to the Supreme 
 Court of the United States ; and the re- 
 plevin act makes it an indictable offence 
 for any clerk to furnish a copy of the 
 record, for the purpose of such appeal. 
 
 The two principal provisions on which 
 South Carolina relies, to resist the laws 
 of the United States, and nullify the 
 authority of this government, are, tliere- 
 fore, these : — 
 
 1 . A forcible seizure of goods, before 
 duties are paid or secured, by the power 
 of the State, civil and military. 
 
 2. Tlie taking away, by the most 
 effectual means in her power, of all legal 
 redress in the courts of the United 
 States; the confining of judicial pro- 
 ceedings to her own State tribunals; and 
 the compelling of her judges and jurors 
 of these her own coiu'ts to take an oath, 
 beforehand, tliat they will decide all 
 cases according to the ordinance, and 
 the acts passed under it; that is, that 
 they will decide the cause one way. 
 They do not swear to try it, on its own 
 merits; they only swear to decide it as 
 nullification requires. 
 
 Tlie character. Sir, of these pjoviis 
 ions defies comment. Theu* object is as 
 plain as their means are extraordinary. 
 They propose direct resistance, by the 
 whole power of the State, to laws of 
 Congress, and cut off, by methods deemed 
 adequate, any redress by legal and judi- 
 cial authority. They arrest legislation, 
 defy the executive, and banish the judi- 
 cial power of this government. They 
 authorize and command acts to be done, 
 and done by force, both of numbers and 
 of arms, which, if done, and done by 
 force, are clearly acts of rebellion and 
 treason. 
 
 Such, Sir, are the laws of South Caro- 
 lina; such, Sir, is the peaceable remedy 
 of nullification. Has not nullification 
 reached. Sir, even thus early, that point 
 of direct and forcible resistance to law 
 to which I intimated, three years ago, it 
 plainly tended? 
 
 And now, Mr. President, what is the 
 reason for passing laws like these? 
 What are the oppressions experienced 
 under the Union, calling for measures 
 which thus threaten to sever and destroy 
 it? What invasions of public liberty, 
 what ruin to private happiness, what 
 long list of rights violated, or wrongs 
 unredressed, is to justify to the coun- 
 try, to posterity, and to the world, this 
 assault upon the free Constitution of 
 the United States, this gi-eat and glori- 
 ous work of our fathers? At this very 
 moment, Sir, the whole land smiles in 
 j^eace, and rejoices in plenty. A gen- 
 eral and a high prospem-y pervades the 
 country; and, judging by the common 
 standard, by increase of population and 
 
800 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A C0:MPACT 
 
 wealth, or judging by the opinions of 
 that portion of her people not embarked 
 in these dangerous and desi)erate meas- 
 ures, tliis prosperity overspreads South 
 Carolina herself. 
 
 Tiios hapjjy at home, our country, at 
 the same time, holds high the character 
 of her institutions, her power, her rapid 
 gro\\th, and her future destiny, in the 
 eyes of all foreign states. One danger 
 only creates hesitation ; one doubt only 
 exists, to darken the otherwise unclouded 
 briglitness of that aspect which she ex- 
 hibits to the view and* to the admiration 
 of the world. Need I say, that that 
 doubt respects the permanency of oua* 
 Union? and need I say, that that doubt 
 is now caused, more than any thing 
 else, by these very proceedings of South 
 Carolina? Sir, all Em-ope is, at this 
 moment, beholding us, and looking for 
 the issue of this controversy; those who 
 hate free institutions, with malignant 
 hope; those who love them, with deep 
 anxiety and shivering fear. 
 
 The cause, then. Sir, the cause! Let 
 the world know the cause which has 
 thus induced one State of the Union to 
 bid defiance to the power of the whole, 
 and openly to talk of secession. Sir, 
 the world will scarcely believe that this 
 whole controversy, and all the desjierate 
 measures which its support requires, 
 have no other foundation than a differ- 
 ence of opinion upon a provision of the 
 Constitution, between a majority of the 
 people of South Carolina, on one side, 
 and a vast majority of the whole people 
 of the United States, on the otlier. It 
 will not credit tlie fact, it will not admit 
 the possibility, that, in an enlightened 
 age, in a free, popular republic, under a 
 constitution wliere the people govern, 
 as they mii.st always govern under such 
 systems, by majorities, at a time of un- 
 precedented prosperity, without ]>racti- 
 cal oppression, without evils such as may 
 not only be pretended, but felt and exjie- 
 rienced, — evils not slight or temporary, 
 but deep, jxirmanent, and intolerable, 
 — a single State should rush into con- 
 flict with all the rest, attempt to put 
 down the power of the Union by her 
 own laws, and to su2>port those laws by 
 
 her militar}' power, and thus break up 
 and destroy the world's last hope. And 
 well the world may be incredulous. "We, 
 who see and hear it, can ourselves hardly 
 yet believe it. Even after all that had 
 preceded it, this ordinance struck the 
 country with amazement. It was in- 
 credible and inconceivable that South 
 Carolina should plunge headlong into 
 resistance to the laws on a matter of 
 opinion, and on a question in which the 
 preponderance of opinion, both of the 
 present day and of all past time, was so 
 overwhelmingly against her. The ordi- 
 nance declares that Congress has ex- 
 ceeded its just power by laying duties 
 on imports, intended for the protection 
 of manufactures. This is the opinion 
 of South Carolina; and on the strength 
 of that opinion she nullifies the laws. 
 Yet has the rest of the comitry no right 
 to its opinion also? Is one State to sit 
 sole arbitress? She maintains that those 
 laws are plain, deliberate, and palpable 
 violations of the Constitution; that she 
 has a sovereign right to decide this mat- 
 ter; and that, having so decided, she is 
 authorized to resist their execution by 
 her own sovereign power; and she de- 
 clares that she will resist it, though such 
 resistance should shatter the Union into 
 atoms. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not intend to dis- 
 cuss the propriety of these laws at large ; 
 but I will ask. How are they shown to 
 be thus plainly and palpably unconstitu- 
 tional? Have tliey no countenance at 
 all in the Constitution itself? Are they 
 quite new in the history of the govern- 
 ment? Are they a sudden and violent 
 usurpation on the rights of the States? 
 Sir, what will the civilized world say, 
 what will posterity say, when they learu 
 that similar laws have existed from the 
 very foundation of the government, that 
 for thirty yt-ars the power was never 
 questioned, and that no State in the 
 Union hiis more freely and unequivocally 
 admitted it than South Carolina herself? 
 
 To lay and collect dutios and imposts is 
 an express /)o/rcr granted by the Constitu- 
 tion to Congress. It is, al.so, an exclusii''e 
 power ; for the Constitution as exj>ri'ssly 
 prohibiliJ all the States from exercising il 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 301 
 
 tliemselves. This express and exclu- 
 sive po\i-3r is unlimited in the terms of 
 the errant, but is attended witli two spe- 
 cific restrictions: first, tluit all duties and 
 imposts shall be equal in all the States; 
 second, that no duties shall be laid on 
 exports. The power, then, being grant- 
 ed, and being attended with these two 
 restrictions, and no more, who is to im- 
 pose a third restriction on the general 
 words of the grant? If the power to 
 lay duties, as known among all other 
 rations, and as known in all our history, 
 and as it was perfectly understood when 
 the Constitution was adopted, includes 
 a right of discriminating while exer- 
 cising the power, and of laying some 
 duties heavier and some lighter, for the 
 sake of encouraging our own domestic 
 products, what authority is there for 
 giving to the words used in the Consti- 
 tution a new, narrow, and unusual 
 meaning? All the limitations which 
 the Constitution intended, it has ex- 
 pressed ; and what it has left unrestrict- 
 ed is as much a part of its will as the 
 restraints which it has imposed. 
 
 But these laws, it is said, are uncon- 
 stitutional on account of the motive. 
 How, Sir, can a law be examined on 
 any such ground? How is the motive 
 to be ascertained ? One house, or one 
 member, may have one motive; the 
 other house, or another member, another. 
 One motive may operate to-day, and 
 another to-morrow. Upon any such 
 mode of reasoning as this, one law 
 might be unconstitutional now, and 
 another law, in exactly the same words, 
 perfectly constitutional next year. Be- 
 sides, articles may not only be taxed 
 for the purpose of protecting home prod- 
 ucts, but other articles may be left free, 
 for the same purpose and with the same 
 motive. A law, therefore, would be- 
 come unconstitutional from what it 
 omitted, as well as from what it con- 
 tained. Mr. President, it is a settled 
 principle, acknowledged in all legisla- 
 tive halls, recognized before all tribu- 
 nals, sanctioned by the general sense 
 and understanding of mankind, that 
 there C£:i be no inquiry into the mo- 
 tives of those who pass laws, for the 
 
 purpose of determining on their validity. 
 If the law be within the fair meaning 
 of the words in the grant of the power, 
 its authority must be admitted until it 
 is repealed. This rule, everywhere ac- 
 knowledged, everywhere admitted, is so 
 universal and so comj-letely without 
 exception, that even an allegation of 
 fraud, in the majority of a legislature, 
 is not allowed as a ground to set aside 
 a law. 
 
 But, Sir, is it true that the motive f(>i 
 these laws is such as is stated? I think 
 not. The great object of all these laws 
 is, unquestionably, revenue. If there 
 were no occasion for revenue, the laAVS 
 would not have been passed; and it is 
 notorious that almost the entire revenue 
 of the country is derived from them. 
 And as yet we have collected none too 
 much revenue. The treasury has not 
 been more reduced for many years than 
 it is at the present moment. All that 
 South Carolina can say is, that, in pa.ss- 
 ing the laws which she now undertakes 
 to nullify, particular imported articles 
 were taxed, from a regard to the protec- 
 tion of certain articles of domestic manu- 
 facture, higher than they would hare been 
 had no such regard been entertained. And 
 she insists, that, according to the Con- 
 stitution, no such discrimination can be 
 allowed; that duties should be laid for 
 revenue, and revenue only; and that it 
 is unlawful to have reference, in any 
 case, to protection. In other words, she 
 denies the power of discrimixatiox. 
 She does not, and cannot, complain of 
 excessive taxation; on the contrary, she 
 professes to be willing to pay any 
 amount for revenue, merely as revenue; 
 and up to the present moment there ia 
 no surplus of revenue. Hei- grievance, 
 then, that plain and palpable violation 
 of the Constitution which she insists 
 has taken place, is simply the exercise o£ 
 the power of discrimixatiox. Now, 
 Sir, is the exercise of this power of dis- 
 crimination plainly and palpably uncon- 
 stitutional? 
 
 I have already said, the power to lay 
 duties is given by the Constitution in 
 broad and general terms. There is also 
 conferred on Congress the whole power 
 
'i02 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 of regulating commerce, in another dis- 
 tinct provision. Is it clear and palpa- 
 ble, Sir, can any man say it is a case 
 beyond doubt, that, under these two 
 powers, Congress may not justly discrim- 
 inate, in Ia}"ing duties, for the purpose of 
 countervailing the policy of foreign nations, 
 or of favoring our oun home productions f 
 Sir, what ought to conclude this ques- 
 tion for ever, as it would seem to me, is, 
 that the regulation of commerce and the 
 imposition of duties are, in all commer- 
 cial nations, powers avowedly and con- 
 stantly exercised for this very end. 
 That undeniable truth ought to settle 
 the question; because the Constitution 
 ought to be considered, when it uses 
 well-known language, as using it in its 
 well-known sense. But it is equally lui- 
 deniable, that it has been, from the vei-y 
 first, fully believed that this power of 
 discrimination was conferred on Con- 
 gress; and the Constitution was itself 
 recommended, urged upon the people, 
 and enthusiastically insisted on in some 
 of the States, for that very reason. Xot 
 that, at that time, the country was ex- 
 tensively engaged in manufactures, espe- 
 cially of the kinds now existing. But 
 the trades and crafts of the seaport 
 tovsTis, the business of the artisans and 
 manual laborers, — those emplojinents, 
 the work in which supplies so great a 
 portion of the daily wants of all classes, 
 — all these looked to the new Constitu- 
 tion as a source of relief from the severe 
 distress which followed the war. It 
 would, Sir, be unpardonable, at so late 
 an hour, to go into details on this point; 
 but the truth is as I have stated. The 
 papers of the day, the resolutions of 
 public nieetings, the debates in the con- 
 ventions, all that we open our eyes upon 
 in the histoiy of the times, prove it. 
 
 Sir, the- honorable gentleman from 
 South Car ylina hiis referred to two inci- 
 dents connected with the proceedings of 
 tlie Convention at riiiladelphia, which 
 he thinks are evidence to show that the 
 power of protecting manufactures by 
 laying duties, and by commercial regu- 
 lations, was not intended to be given to 
 Congress. The first is, as he says, that 
 a power to protect manufactures was 
 
 expressly projiosed, but not granted. 1 
 thiidv. Sir, the gentleman is ijuite mis- 
 taken in relation to this part of the pro- 
 ceedings of the Convention. The whole 
 history of the occurrence to which he 
 alludes is simply this. Towards the 
 conclusion of the Convention, after the 
 provisions of the Constitution had been 
 mainly agreed upon, after the power to 
 lay duties and the power to regulate 
 commerce had both been granted, a long 
 list of propositions was made and re- 
 ferred to the committee, containing vari- 
 ous miscellaneous powers, some or all of 
 which it was thought might be properly 
 vested in Congress. Among these was 
 a power to establish a university; to 
 grant charters of incorporation; to reg- 
 ulate stage-coaches on the post-roads, 
 and also the power to which the gentle- 
 man refers, and which is expressed in 
 these words : "To establish public in- 
 stitutions, rewards, and immunities, for 
 the promotion of agriciUture, commerce, 
 trades, and manufactures." The com- 
 mittee made no report on this or various 
 other propositions in the same list. But 
 the only inference from this omission is, 
 that neither the committee nor the Con- 
 vention thought it proper to authorize 
 Congress " to establish public institu- 
 tions, rewards, and immmiities," for the 
 promotion of manufactures, and other 
 interests. The Convention supposed it 
 had done enough, — at any rate, it had 
 done all it intended, — when it had 
 given to Congress, in general terms, 
 the power to lay imposts and the powei 
 to regulate trade. It is not to be argued, 
 from its omission to give more, that it 
 meant to take back what it had already 
 given. It had given the impost power; 
 it had given the regulation of trade ; and 
 it did not deem it necessary to give the 
 further and distinct power of establish- 
 ing public institutions. 
 
 The other fact. Sir, on which the gen- 
 tleman relies, is the declaration of Mr. 
 Martin to the legislature of ^laryland. 
 The gentleman supposes ilr. Martin to 
 have urged against the Constitution, 
 that it did not contain tlit-" powor of pro- 
 tection. But if the gentleman will look 
 again at what Mr. Martin said, he will 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 303 
 
 find, I think, that what Mr. Martin com- 
 plained of was, that the Constitution, by 
 its proliibitions on the States, had taken 
 away from the States themselves the 
 power of i>rotecting their own manufac- 
 tures by duties on imports. This is un- 
 doubtedly true; but I find no expression 
 of Mr. ^lartin intimating that the Con- 
 stitution liad not conferred on Congress 
 the same power whicli it had thus taken 
 from the States. 
 
 But, Sir, let us go to the first Con- 
 gress ; let us look in upon this and the 
 other house, at the first session of their 
 organization. 
 
 We see, in both houses, men distin- 
 guished among theframers, friends, and 
 advocates of the Constitution. We see 
 in both, those -who had drawn, discussed, 
 and matured the instriunent in the Con- 
 vention, explained and defended it be- 
 fore the people, and were now elected 
 members of Congress, to put the new 
 government into motion, and to carry 
 tJie powers of the Constitution into bene- 
 ficial execution. At the head of the gov- 
 ernment was Wasiiixgtox liimself , who 
 had been President of the Convention : 
 and in his cabinet were others most 
 thoroughly acquainted with the history 
 of the Constitution, and distinguished 
 for the part taken in its discussion. If 
 these persons were not acquainted with 
 the meaning of the Constitution, if they 
 did not understand the work of their 
 own hands, who can understand it, or 
 who shall now mterpret it to usV 
 
 Sir, the volume which records the pro- 
 ceedings and debates of the first session 
 of the House of Representatives lies 
 before me. I open it, and I find that, 
 having provided for the administration 
 of the necessary oaths, the very first 
 measm-e proposed for consideration is, 
 the laj-ing of imposts; and in the very 
 fii-st committee of the whole into which 
 the House of llepresentatives ever re- 
 solved itself, on this its earliest subject, 
 and in this its very first debate, the duty 
 of so laying the imposts as to encourage 
 manufactures was advanced and en- 
 larged upon by almost eveiy speaker, 
 and doubted or denied by none. The 
 first gentleman who suggests this as the 
 
 clear duty of Congress, and as an object 
 necessary to be attended to, is Mr. Fitz- 
 simons, of Pennsylvania; the second, 
 Mr. White, of Viuoi.n'ia; the third, ^Ir. 
 Tucker, of Sorrii Cakoiixa. 
 
 Put the great leader. Sir, on this oc 
 casion, was ^Ir. Madison. AVas he like- 
 ly to know tlie intentions of the Con- 
 vention and tlie people? Was he likely 
 to understand the Constitution? At tho 
 second sitting of the committee, ^Ir. 
 I\Iadison explained his own ojiiniona 
 of the dutj- of Congi-ess, fully aiul ex- 
 plicitly. I nmst not detain you. Sir, 
 with more than a few short extracts 
 from these opinions, but they are such 
 as are clear, intelligible, and decisive. 
 " The States," says he, " that are most 
 advanced in population, and ripe for 
 mamil'actures, ought to have their par- 
 ticular interest attended to, in some de- 
 jrree. AVhile these States retained the 
 power of making regulations of trade, 
 they had the power to cherish such insti- 
 tutions. By adopting the present Consti- 
 tution, they have thrown the exercise of 
 this power into other hands; they must 
 have done this with an expectation that 
 those interests would not be neglected 
 here." In another report of the same 
 speech," Mr. ]Madison is represented as 
 using still stronger language; assaying 
 that, tlie Constitution having taken this 
 power away from the States and con- 
 ferred it on CongTess, it would be a 
 fraud on the States and on the people 
 were Congress to refu.se to exercise it. 
 ]\Ir. Madison argues. Sir, on this early 
 and interesting occasion, very justly and 
 liberally, in favor of the general prin- 
 ciples of unrestricted commerce. But he 
 argues, also, with equal force and clear- 
 ness, for certain important exceptions to 
 these general pruiciples. The first, Sir, 
 respects those manufactures wliich had 
 been brought forward under encourage- 
 ment by the State governments. " It 
 would becrael," says Mr. Madison, "to 
 neglect them, and to divert their indus- 
 try into other channels; for it is not 
 possible for the hand of man to shift 
 from one emplopnent to another with- 
 out being injured by the change." 
 Again: " There may be some manufac- 
 
304 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 
 
 tures M-hich, being once formed, can ad- 
 vance towards perfection without any 
 adventitious aid; while others, for want 
 of the fostering hand of government, 
 will be unable to go on at all. Legis- 
 lative provision, therefore, will be neces- 
 sarj' to collect the proper objects for this 
 purpose; and this will form another ex- 
 ception to my general principle." And 
 again : " The next exception that occurs 
 is one on which great stress is laid by 
 some well-informed men, and this with 
 gi-eat plausibility ; that each nation 
 should have, within itself, the means 
 of defence, independent of foreign sup- 
 plies ; that, in whatever relates to the 
 operations of war, no State ought to de- 
 pend upon a precarious supply from any 
 part of the world. There may be some 
 truth in this remark ; and therefore it is 
 proper for legislative attention." 
 
 In the same debate. Sir, ^Mr. Burk, 
 from South Carolina, supported a 
 duty on hemp, for the express purpose 
 of encouraging its growth on the strong 
 lands of South Carolina. " Cotton," he 
 said, "was also in contemplation among 
 them, and, if good seed could be pro- 
 cured, he hoped might succeed." After- 
 wards, Sir, the cotton was obtained, its 
 culture was protected, and it did suc- 
 ceed. Mr. Smith, a very distinguished 
 member from the same State, ob- 
 served: " It has been said, and justly, 
 that the States which adopted this Con- 
 stitution expected its administration 
 would be conducted with a favora- 
 ble hand. The manufacturing States 
 wished the encouragement of manufac- 
 tures, the maritime States the encouV- 
 agement of ship-building, and the agri- 
 cultural States the encouragement of 
 agriculture." 
 
 Sir, I will detain the Senate by read- 
 ing no more extracts from these debates. 
 I have already shown a majority of the 
 members of South Carolix.\, in this 
 very first session, acknowledging this 
 power of protection, voting for its exer- 
 cise, and proposing its extension to their 
 own products. Similar propositions came 
 from Virginia; and, indeed. Sir, in the 
 whole debate, at wiiatever page you open 
 the volume, you find the power admitted, 
 
 and you find it applied to the protection 
 of particular articles, or not applied, ac- 
 cording to the discretion of Congress. 
 Xo man denied the power, no man 
 doubted it; the only questions were, in 
 regard to the several articles proposed 
 to be taxed, whether they were fit sub- 
 jects for protection, and what the amount 
 of that protection ought to be. "Will 
 gentlemen. Sir, now answer the argu- 
 ment dra^^Tl from these proceedings of 
 the first Congress ? Will they under- 
 take to deny that that Congress did act 
 on the avowed principle of protection ? 
 Or, if they admit it, will they tell us how 
 those who framed the Constitution fell, 
 thus early, into this great mistake about 
 its meaning ? Will they tell us how it 
 should happen that they had so soon for- 
 gotten their own sentiments and their 
 own purposes ? I confess I have seen 
 no answer to this argument, nor any 
 respectable attempt to answer it. And, 
 Sir, how did this debate terminate ? 
 What law was passed ? There it stands. 
 Sir, among the statutes, the second law 
 in the book. It has a preamble, and tha"i 
 preamble expressly recites, that the du- 
 ties which it imposes are laid *'for the 
 support of government, for the discharge 
 of the debts of the United States, and 
 the encouragement and protection of manu- 
 facture;^." Until, Sir, this early legisla- 
 tion, thus coeval with the Constitution 
 itself, thus full and explicit, can be ex- 
 plained away, no man can doubt of the 
 meaning of that instrument in this re- 
 spect. 
 
 ^Ir. President, this power of discrimi' 
 nation, thus admitted, avowed, and prac- 
 tised upon in the first revenue act. has 
 never been denied or doubted until with- 
 in a few years past. It was not at all 
 doubted in 1816, when it became neces- 
 sary to adjust the revenue to a state of 
 peace. On the contrary, the power v.aa 
 then exercised, not without opposition 
 a.s to its expediency, but, as far as I re- 
 member or have understood, without the 
 slightest opposition founded on any sup- 
 posed want of constitutional authority. 
 Certainly, Soith Cakoi.ixa did not 
 duubt it. The tariff of 181(3 was intro- 
 duced, carried through, and establisliod. 
 
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 ander the lead of South Carolina. Even 
 the minimum policy is of South Carolina 
 origin. The honorable gentleman him- 
 self supported, and ably supported, the 
 tariff of 1816. He has informed us, Sir. 
 that his spefich on that occasion was sud- 
 den and off-hand, he being called up by 
 the request of a friend. I am sure the 
 gentleman so remembers it, and that it 
 was so; but there is, nevertheless, much 
 met'iod, arrangement, and clear exposi- 
 tion in that extempore speech. It is 
 vei-j able, very, very much to the point, 
 and very decisive. And in anotlier 
 speech, delivered two months earlier, on 
 the proposition to repeal the internal 
 taxes, the honorable gentleman had 
 touched the same subject, and had de- 
 clared '■'■that a certain encouragement 
 ought to he extended at least to our woollen 
 and cotton manufacturer. ^^ I do not quote 
 these speeches. Sir, for the purpose of 
 showing that the honorable gentleman 
 has changed his opinion: my object is 
 other and higher. I do it for the sake 
 of saying that that cannot be so jilaiidy 
 and palpably unconstitutional as to war- 
 rant resistance to law, nullification, and 
 revolution, which the honorable gentle- 
 man and his friends have heretofore 
 agreed to and acted upon without doubt 
 and without hesitation. Sir, it is no 
 answer to say that the tariff of 1816 was 
 a revenue bill. So are they all revenue 
 bills. The point is, and the truth is, 
 that the tariff of 1816, like the rest, did 
 discriminate ; it did distinguish one arti- 
 cle from another; it did lay duties for 
 protection. Look to the case of coarse 
 cottons under the minimum calcidation: 
 the duty on these was from sixty to 
 eighty per cent. Something beside rev- 
 enue, certainly, was intended in this; 
 and, in fact, the law cut up our whole 
 commerce with India in that article. 
 
 It is. Sir, only within a few years that 
 Carolina has denied the constitutionality 
 of these protective laws. The gentleman 
 himself has narrated to us the true his- 
 tory of her proceedings on this point. 
 He says, that, after the passing of the law 
 of 1S2S, despairing then of being able to 
 abolish the system of protection, polit- 
 ical men went forth among the people, 
 
 and set up the doctrine that the 
 was unconstitutional. ^^ And i 
 ple,^' says the honorable gentlem; 
 ceived the doctrine.''^ This, I be . 
 true, Sir. The people did then 
 tlie doctrine : tliey had never er.c* 
 it before. Down to that peri 
 constitutionality of these laws h . • n 
 no more doubted in South Caroli..« Juur^ 
 elsewhere. And I suspect it is true. Sir, 
 and I deem it a great misfortune, that, 
 to the present moment, a great portico 
 of the people of the State have never yet 
 seen more than one side of the argu- 
 ment. I believe that thousands of hon- 
 est men are involved in scenes now 
 passing, led away by one-sided views of 
 the question, and following their leaders 
 by the impidses of an unlimited confi- 
 dence. Depend upon it. Sir, if we can 
 avoid the shock of arms, a day for recon- 
 sideration and reflection will come ; truth 
 and reason will act with their accus- 
 tomed force, and the public opinion of 
 South Carolina will be restored to its 
 usual constitutional and patriotic tone. 
 
 But, Sir, I hold South Carolina to her 
 ancient, her cool, her iminfluenced, her 
 deliberate opinions. I hold her to her 
 own admissions, nay, to her own claims 
 and pretensions, in 1789, in the first 
 Congress, and to her acknowledgments 
 and avowed sentiments throusrii a Ions 
 series of succeeding years. I hold her 
 to the principles on which she led Con- 
 gress to act in 1816; or, if she have 
 changed lier own opinions, I claim some 
 respect for those who still retain the 
 same opinions. I say she is precluded 
 from asserting that doctrines, which she 
 has herself so long and so ably sustained, 
 are plain, palpable, and dangerous vio- 
 lations of the Constitution. 
 
 ]\Ir. President, if the friends of nulli- 
 fication should be able to propagate their 
 opinions, and give them practical effect, 
 they would, in my judgment, prove 
 them.selves the most skilful "architects 
 of ruin," the most effectual extinguish- 
 ers of high-raised expectation, the great- 
 est blasters of human hopes, that any age 
 has produced. Tiiey would stand up to 
 proclaim, in tones which would pierce 
 the ears of half the human race, that tlie 
 
 20 
 
THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT, ETC. 
 
 jxperiment of representative 
 t had failed. They would 
 sounds, at the hearing of 
 •svJuch the doctrine of the divine right 
 of kings -would feel, even in its grave, a 
 returning sensation of vitality and resus- 
 citation. Millions of eyes, of those who 
 now feed their inherent love of liberty 
 on the success of the American example, 
 Moidd turn away from beholding our 
 dismemberment, and find no place on 
 earth whereon to rest tlieir gi-atified 
 sight. Amidst the incantations and or- 
 gies of nullification, secession, disunion, 
 and revolution, would be celebrated the 
 funeral rites of constitutional and repub- 
 lican liberty. 
 
 But, Sir, if the government do its 
 duty, if it act with firmness and with 
 moderation, these opinions cannot pre- 
 vail. Be assm-ed. Sir, be assm-ed, that, 
 among the political sentiments of this 
 people, the love of union is still upper- 
 most. They will stand fast by the Con- 
 stitution, and by those who defend it. 
 I rely on no temporary expedients, on no 
 ]^olitical combination; but I rely on the 
 true American feeling, the genuine patri- 
 otism of the people, and the imperative 
 decision of the public voice. Disorder 
 and confusion, indeed, may arise; scenes 
 of commotion and contest are tlireat- 
 ened, and perhaps may come. With my 
 whole heart, I pray for the continuance 
 of the domestic peace and quiet of the 
 country. I desire, most ardently, tlie 
 restoration of affectiou and harmony to 
 all its p^ts. I desii-e that every citizen 
 
 of the whole country may look to this 
 government with no other sentiments 
 than those of grateful respect and at- 
 tachment. But I cannot yield even to 
 kind feelings the cause of the Constitu- 
 tion, the true glory of the country, and 
 the great trust which we hold in our 
 hands for succeeding ages. If the Con- 
 stitution cannot be maintained without 
 meeting these scenes of commotion and 
 contest, however unwelcome, they must 
 come. We cannot, we must not, we dare 
 not, omit to do that which, in our judg- 
 ment, the safety of the Union requires. 
 Not regardless of consequences, we must 
 yet meet consequences; seeing the haz- 
 ards which surround the discharge of 
 public duty, it must yet be discharged. 
 For myself, Sir, I shun no responsibility 
 justly devolving on me, here or else- 
 where, in attempting to maintain the 
 cause. I am bound to it by indissoluble 
 ties of affection and duty, and I shall 
 cheerfully partake in its fortunes and its 
 fate. I am ready to perform my own 
 appropriate part, whenever and wherever 
 the occasion may call on me, and to take 
 my chance among those upon whom 
 blows may fall first and fall thickest. 
 I shall exert every faculty I possess in 
 aiding to prevent the Constitution from 
 being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; 
 and even should I see it fall, I will still, 
 with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earue&t 
 as ever issued from human lips, and 
 with fidelity and zeal which nothing 
 shall extinguish, call on the PEOrLE 
 to come to its rescue. 
 
 \ 
 
PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 K SPEECH DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC DINNER GIVEN BY A LARGE NUMREB 
 OF CITIZENS OF NEW YORK, IN HONOR OF MR. WEBSTER, ON MARCH 
 lOiH, 1831 
 
 [Ix February, 1831, several distinguished 
 gentlemen of the city of New York, iu be- 
 half of themselves and a large number of 
 other citizens, invited Mr. Wel)ster to a pub- 
 lic dinner, as a mark of their respect for 
 tiie value and success of his efforts, in the 
 preceding session of Congress, in defence 
 of the Constitution of the United States. 
 His speech in reply to Mr. Hayno (con- 
 tained in an earlier part of thiis volume), 
 which, by that time, had been circulated 
 and read through the country to a greater 
 extent than any speech ever before delivered 
 in Congress, was the particular effort which 
 led to this invitation. 
 
 The dinner took place at the City Hotel, 
 on the 10th of March, and was attended by 
 a very large assembly. 
 
 Chancellor Kent presided, and, in propos- 
 ing to the compan\' the health of their guest, 
 made the following remarks : — 
 
 "New England has been long fruitful in 
 great men, the necessary consequence of the 
 admirable discipline of lier institutions; and we 
 are this day honored with the presence of one 
 of those cherished objects of her attachment 
 and pride, who has an undoubted and peculiar 
 title to our regard. It is a plain truth, that he 
 who defends the constitution of his country by 
 his wisdom in council is entitled to share her 
 gratitude with those who protect it by valnr in 
 the tield. Peace has its victories as well as war. 
 We all recollect a laie memorable occasion, wiien 
 the exalted talents and enligiitened patriotism 
 of the gentleman to whom I liave alluded were 
 exerted in the support of our national Union 
 and the sound iuter[)retation of its charter. 
 
 "If there be anyone political precept pre- 
 eminent above all others and acknowledged by 
 all, it is that which dictates tile absolute neces- 
 sity of a union of the States under one govern- 
 ment, and that government clothed with those 
 attributes and powers with which the existing 
 Constitution has invested it. We are indebted, 
 under I'rovidence, to the operation and influence 
 of the powers of that Constitution for our na- 
 tional honor abroad and for unexampled pros- 
 perity at home. Its future stability depends 
 upon the tirm support and due exercise of its 
 
 legitimate powers in all their branches. a 
 tendency to disunion, to anarchy among the 
 members rather than to tyranny in tlie head, 
 has been heretofore the melancholy fate of all 
 the federal governments of ancient and modem 
 Europe. Our Union and national (constitution 
 were formed, as we have hitherto been led to 
 believe, under better auspices and with im])roved 
 wisdom. But there was a deadly principle of 
 disease inherent in the system. The assump- 
 tion by any member of the Union of the right 
 to question and resist, or annid, as its own judg- 
 ment should dictate, either the laws of Congress, 
 or the treaties, or the decisions of the federal 
 courts, or the mandates of the executive power, 
 duly made and promulgated as the Constitution 
 prescribes, was a most dangerous assumption 
 of power, leading to collision and the destruc- 
 tion of the system. And if, contrary to all our 
 expectations, we should hereafter fail in the 
 grand experiment of a confederate government 
 extending over some of the fairest portions of 
 this continent, and destined to act, at the same 
 time, with efficiency and harmony, we should 
 most grievously disappoint the hopes of man- 
 kind, and blast for ever the fruits of the Revo- 
 lution. 
 
 " But, happily for us, the refutation of such 
 dangerous pretensions, on the occasion referred 
 to, was signal and complete. The false images 
 and delusive theories which had perplexed the 
 thoughts and disturbed the judgments of men, 
 were then dissipated in like manner as spectres 
 disappear at the rising of the sun. The ines« 
 tinuible value of the Uinon, and the true p-inci- 
 ples of the Constitution, were explained by clear 
 ami accurate reasonings, and enforced by pa- 
 tlietic and eloquent illustrations. The result 
 was the more auspicious, as the heretical doc- 
 trines which were tlu-n fairly reasoned down 
 had been advanced by a very respectable por- 
 tion of the Union, and urged on the door of the 
 Senate by the polished mind, manly zeal, and 
 honored name of a distinguished member from 
 the South 
 
 '' I'he consequences of that discussion have 
 been extremely beneficial. It turned the atten- 
 tion of the public to the great doctrines of lui- 
 tioiutl rights and national union. Constitutional 
 law leased to remain wrapped up in the breasts, 
 and taught onlv by the responses, of the living 
 oracles of the law. Socrates was suid to have 
 
308 
 
 PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 drawn down philosophy from the skies, and 
 jcattered it amoiifr t'le scliools. It may with 
 equal truth be saiil, that constitutional law, by 
 means of those senatorial discussions and the 
 master f,enius that fjuidod them, was rescued 
 from the archives of our tribunals and the 
 libraries of lawyers, and p accd under the eye, 
 and submitted to the juiipment, of the Ameri- 
 can people, Tfieir vtntict is with us, and from 
 it thtre lies no oppeiU." 
 
 As soon as the immense cheering and 
 Rcttlamations with which this address and 
 to.ist were received liad subsided, Mr. Web- 
 ster rose and addressed the company as 
 follows.] 
 
 I OWE the lionor of this occasion, 
 Gentlemen, to your patriotic and affec- 
 tionate attachment to the Constitution 
 of our country. For an effort, well in- 
 tended, however otherwise of unpretend- 
 ing character, made in the discharge of 
 public dvity, and designed to maintain 
 the Constitution and vindicate its just 
 powers, you have been pleased to tender 
 me this token of your respect. It would 
 be idle affectation to deny that it gives 
 rue singular gratification. Every public 
 man must naturally desire the approba- 
 tion of his fellow-citizens; and though 
 it may be supposed that I should be 
 anxious, in the first place, not to disap- 
 point the expectations of those whose 
 immediate representative I am, it is not 
 possible but that I should feel, neverthe- 
 less, the high value of such a mark of 
 esteem as is here offered. But, Gentle- 
 men, I am conscious that the main pur- 
 pose of this occasion is higher than mere 
 manifestation of personal regard. It is 
 to evince your devotion to the Constitu- 
 tion, your sense of its transcendent value, 
 and your just alarm at whatever threat- 
 ens to weaken its proper authority, or 
 endanger its existence. 
 
 Gentlemen, this could hardly be other- 
 wise. It would be strange, indeed, if 
 tlie members of this vast commercial 
 community should not be first and fore- 
 most to rally for the Constitution, when- 
 ever opinions and doctrines are advanced 
 hostile to its principles. Where sooner 
 than here, where louder than here, may 
 we ex]>ect a patriotic voice to be raised, 
 when the union of the States is threat^ 
 ened? In this great emporium, at this 
 central point of the united commerce of 
 
 the United States, of all places, we mai 
 expect the warmest, the most determined 
 and universal feeling of attachment to 
 the national government. Gentlemen, 
 no one can estimate more highly than I 
 do the natural advantages of your city. 
 No one entertains a higher opinion than 
 myself, also, of that spirit of wise and 
 liberal policy, which has actuated t)ie 
 government of your o^\^l great State in 
 the accomplishment of high objects, im- 
 portant to the grovk-th and prosjierity 
 both of the State and the city. But all 
 these local advantages, and all this en- 
 lightened .state policy, could never have 
 made your city what it now is, without 
 the aid and protection of a general gov- 
 ernment, extending over all the States, 
 and establishing for all a common and 
 uniform system of commercial regula- 
 tion. \\'ithout national character, with- 
 out pul)lic credit, without sj'stematic 
 finance, without uniformity of commer- 
 cial laws, all other advantages possessed 
 bv this citv would have decaved and 
 perislied, like unripe fruit. A general 
 government was, for years before it \\ as 
 instituted, the great object of desire to 
 the inhabitants of this city. New York, 
 at a very early day, was conscious of her 
 local advantages for commerce ; she saw 
 her destiny, and was eager to embrace 
 it; but nothing else than a general gov- 
 ernment could make free her path before 
 her, and set her forward on her brilliant 
 career. She early saw all this, and to 
 the accomplishment of this great and in- 
 dispensable object she bent every faculty, 
 and exerted every effort. She was not 
 mistaken. She formed no false judg- 
 ment. At the moment of the adoption 
 of the Con.stitution, New York was the 
 capital of one State, and contained thirty- 
 two or three thousand j>eople. It now 
 contains more than two hundred thou- 
 sand people, and is justly regarded as 
 the commercial capital, not only of all 
 the United States, but of the whole con- 
 tinent also, from the pole to the South 
 Sea. Every page of her history, for the 
 last forty years, hears high and irresisti- 
 ble testimony to the benefits and bies.s- 
 ings of the general government. Her 
 astonishing growth is referred to, and 
 
PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 3U9 
 
 quoted, all the world over, as one of the 
 most striking proofs of the effects of our 
 Federal Union. To suppose her now to 
 be easy and indifferent, when notions 
 are advanced tending to its dissolution, 
 would be to suppose her equally forget- 
 ful of the past and blind to the present, 
 alike ignorant of her own history and 
 her own interest, metamorphosed, from 
 all that she has been, into a being tired 
 of its prosperity' , sick of its own growth 
 and greatness, and infatuated for its own 
 destruction. Every blow aimed at the 
 union of the States strikes on the tender- 
 est nerve of her interest and her happi- 
 ness. To bring the Union into debate 
 is to bring her o^\^l future prosperity 
 into debate also. To speak of arresting 
 the laws of the Union, of interposing 
 State power in matters of commerce and 
 revenue, of weakening the full and just 
 authority of the general government, 
 would be, in regard to this city, but 
 another mode of speaking of commer- 
 cial ruin, of abandoned wharfs, of va- 
 cated houses, of diminished and dispers- 
 ing population, of bankrupt merchants, 
 of mechanics without employment, and 
 laboi'ers without bread. The grov\-th of 
 this city and the Constitution of the 
 United States are coevals and contem- 
 poraries. They began together, they 
 have flourished together, and if rash- 
 ness and folly destroy one, the other 
 will follow it to the tomb. 
 
 Gentlemen, it is true, indeed, that the 
 growth of this city is extraoi'dinary, and 
 almost unexampled. It is now, I be- 
 lieve, sixteen or seventeen years since I 
 first saw it. AVithin that comparatively 
 short period, it has added to its number 
 three times the whole amount of its 
 population when the Constitution was 
 adopted. Of all things having power 
 to check this prosperity, of all things 
 potent to blight and blast it, of all 
 things capable of compelling this city 
 to recede as fast as she has advanced, 
 a disturbed government, an enfeebled 
 public authority, a broken or a weak- 
 ened union of the States, would be most 
 efficacious. This would be cause effi- 
 cient enough. Every thing else, in the 
 common fortune of communities, she 
 
 may hope to resist or to prevent; but 
 this would be fatal as the arrow of 
 death. 
 
 Gentlemen, you have personal recol- 
 lections and associations, connected with 
 the e.stablislinient and adoption of the 
 Constitution, which are necessarily called 
 up on an occasion like tliis. It is im- 
 possible to forget the prominent agency 
 exercised by eminent citizens of your 
 own, in regard to that great measuie. 
 Those great men are now recorded 
 among the illustrious dead; but they 
 have left names never to be forgotten, 
 and never to be remembered without 
 respect and veneration. Least of all 
 can they be forgotten by you, when as- 
 sembled here for the purpose of signify- 
 ing your attachment to the Constitution, 
 and your sense of its inestimable impor- 
 tance to the happiness of the people. 
 
 I should do violence to my own feel- 
 ings, Gentlemen, 1 think I should offend 
 yours, if I omitted respectful mention 
 of distinguished names yet fresh in your 
 recollections. How can I stand here, to 
 speak of the Constitution of the United 
 States, of the wisdom of its provisions, 
 of the difficulties attending its adoption, 
 of the evils from which it rescued the 
 country, and of the prosperity and power 
 to which it has raised it, and yet pay no 
 tribute to those who were highly in- 
 strumental in accomplishing the work? 
 While we are here to rejoice that it j-et 
 stands firm and strong, while we con- 
 gratulate one another that we live under 
 its benign influence, and cherish hopes 
 of its long duration, we cannot forget 
 who they were that, in the day of our 
 national infancy, in the times of de- 
 spondency and despair, mainly assisted 
 to work out our deliverance. 1 should 
 feel that I w^as unfaithful to the strong 
 recollections which the occasion presses 
 upon us, that I was not true tc grati- 
 tude, not true to patriotism, not true to 
 the living or the dead, not true to your 
 feelings or my own, if I should forbear 
 to make mention of Alexander Ham- 
 ilton. 
 
 Coming from the military service of 
 the country yet a youth, but with knowl- 
 edge and maturity, even in civil affairs. 
 
310 
 
 PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 far beyond his years, he made this city 
 the place of his adoption ; and he gave 
 tlie whole powers of his mind to the 
 contemplation of the weak and distracted 
 condition of the country. Daily increas- 
 ing in acquaintance and confidence with 
 the i^eople of New York, he saw, what 
 tliey also saw, the absolute necessity of 
 some closer bond of union for the States. 
 This was the great object of desire. 
 He never appears to have lost sight of 
 it, but was found in the lead whenever 
 any thing was to be attempted for its 
 accomplishment. One experiment after 
 another, as is well known, was tried, 
 and all failed. The States were ur- 
 gently called on to confer such further 
 powers on the old Congress as would 
 enable it to redeem the public faith, or 
 to adopt, themselves, some general and 
 common principle of commercial regula- 
 tion. But the States had not agreed, 
 and were not likely to agree. In this 
 posture of affairs, so full of public diffi- 
 culty and public distress, commissioners 
 from five or six of the States met, on 
 the request of Virginia, at Annapolis, 
 in September, 1786. The precise ob- 
 ject of their appointment was to take 
 into consideration the trade of the Unit- 
 ed States; to examine the relative situ- 
 ations and trade of the several States; 
 and to consider how far a uniform sys- 
 tem of commercial regulations was ne- 
 cessary to their common interest and 
 permanent harmony. ^Ir. Hamilton 
 was one of these commissioners; and I 
 have understood, though I cannot assert 
 the fact, that their report was drawn by 
 Lim. His associate from this State 
 was the venerable Judge Benson, wdio 
 has lived long, and still lives, to see the 
 happy results of the counsels which origi- 
 nated in this meeting. Of its mem- 
 bers, he and Mr. Madison are, I believe, 
 liow the only survivors. These commis- 
 Bioners recommended, what took place 
 the next year, a general Convention of 
 all the States, to take into serious de- 
 liberation the condition of the country, 
 and devise such provisions as should 
 render the constitution of the federal 
 government adequate to the exigencies 
 of the Union. I need not remind you, 
 
 that of this Convention "Sir. Hamiltou 
 was an active and efficient member. 
 The Constitution was framed, and sub- 
 mitted to the country. And then an- 
 other great work was to be undertaken. 
 The Constitution would naturally find, 
 and did find, enemies and opposers. 
 Objections to it were numerous, and 
 powerful, and spirited. They were to 
 be answered; and they were effectually 
 answered. The writers of the number? 
 of the Federalist, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. 
 ^ladison, and Mr. Jay, so greatly dis- 
 tinguished themselves in their discus- 
 sions of the Constitution, that those 
 numbers are generally rec^>ived as im- 
 portant commentaries on the text, and 
 accurate expositions, in general, of its 
 objects and purposes. Tliose papers 
 were all written and published in this 
 city. Mr. Hamilton was elected one of 
 the distinguished deli'gation from the 
 city to the State Convention at Pough- 
 keepsie, called to ratify the new Consti- 
 tution. Its debates are published. Mr. 
 Hamilton appears to have exerted, on 
 this occasion, to the utmost, every power 
 and faculty of his mind. 
 
 The whole question was likely to de- 
 pend on the decision of Xew York. He 
 felt the full importance of the crisis; 
 and the reports of his speeches, imper- 
 fect as they probably are, are yet lasting 
 monuments to his genius and patriotism. 
 He saw at last his hopes fulfilled; he 
 saw the Constitution adoi>ted, and the 
 government under it established and or- 
 ganized. The discerning eye of AVash- 
 ington immediately called him to that 
 post, which was far the most important 
 in the administration of the new system. 
 He was made Secretary of the Treasury; 
 and how he fulfilled the duties of such a 
 place, at such a time, the whole country 
 perceived with delight and the whole 
 world saw with admiration, llf smote 
 the rock of the national re.^our es, and 
 abundant streams of revenue gushed 
 forth. He touched the dead corpse of 
 the Public Credit, and it sprung upon 
 its feet. The fabled birth of Minerva, 
 from the brain of Jove, was hardly mora 
 sudden or more perfect than the finan- 
 i cial svstem of tiie United States, as it 
 
PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 311 
 
 burst foiih from the conceptions of 
 Alexandku Hamilton. 
 
 Your recollections, Gentlemen, your 
 respect, and your affections, all conspire 
 to bring before you, at such a time as 
 this, another great man, now too num- 
 bered with the dead. I mean the pure, 
 the disinterested, the patriotic John 
 Jat. His character is a brilliant jewel 
 in the sacred treasures of national repu- 
 tation. Leaving his profession at an 
 early period, yet not before he had sin- 
 gularly distinguished himself in it, his 
 whole life, from the commencement of 
 the Revolution until his final retirement, 
 was a life of public service. A mem- 
 ber of the first Congress, ho was the 
 author of that political paper which is 
 generally acknowledged to stand first 
 among the incomparable productions of 
 that body;' productions which called 
 forth that decisive strain of commenda- 
 tion from the great Lord Chatham, in 
 which he pronounced them not inferior 
 to the finest productions of the master 
 states of the world. Mr. Jay had been 
 abroad, and he had also been long in- 
 trusted with the difficult duties of our 
 foreign correspondence at home. He 
 had seen and felt, in the fullest measure 
 and to the greatest possible extent, the 
 difficulty of conducting our foreign af- 
 fairs honorably and usefully, without 
 a stronger and more perfect domestic 
 union. Though not a member of the 
 Convention which framed the Constitu- 
 tion, he was yet present while it was in 
 session, and looked anxiously for its re- 
 sult. By the choice of this city, he had 
 a seat in the State Convention, and took 
 an active and zealous part for the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution. On the organ- 
 ization of the new government, he was 
 selected by Washington to be the first 
 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 
 the United States ; and surely the high 
 and most responsible duties of that sta- 
 tion could not have been trusted to abler 
 or safer hands. It is the duty of that 
 tribunal, one of equal importance and 
 delicacy, to decide constitutional ques- 
 tions, occasionally arising on State laws. 
 The general learning and ability, and 
 1 Aildress to the People of Great Britain. 
 
 especially the prudence, the mildness, 
 and the firmness of his character, emi- 
 nently fitted Mr. Jay to be the head of 
 such a court. When the spotless ermine 
 of the judicial robe fell on John Jay, it 
 touched nothing less spotless than itself. 
 These eminent men. Gentlemen, the 
 contemporaries of some of you, kno^vl^ 
 to most, and revered by all, were so con- 
 spicuous in the framing and adopting oi 
 the Constitution, and called so early to 
 important stations under it, that a trib- 
 ute, better, indeed, than I have given, 
 or am able to give, seemed due to them 
 from us, on this occasion. 
 
 There was yet another, of whom men- 
 tion is to be made. In the Revolution- 
 ai-y history of the country, the name of 
 CiiAN'CELLOR LivixGSTOx became early 
 prominent. He was a member of that 
 Congress which declared Independence; 
 and a member, too, of the committee 
 which drew and reported the immortal 
 Declaration. At the period of the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution, he was its firm 
 friend and able advocate. He was a 
 member of the State Convention, being 
 one of that list of distinguished and 
 gifted men who represented this city 
 in that body; and he threw the whole 
 weight of his talents and influence into 
 the doubtful scale of the Constitution. 
 
 Gentlemen, as connected with the 
 Constitution, you have also local recol- 
 lections which must bind it still closer 
 to your attachment and affection. It 
 commenced its being and its blessings 
 here. It was in this city, in the midst 
 of friends, anxious, hopeful, and de- 
 voted, that the new government started 
 in its course. To us. Gentlemen, who 
 are younger, it has come down by tradi- 
 tion ; but some around me are old eiiOugL 
 to have witnessed, and did witness, the 
 interesting scene of the first inaugura- 
 tion. They remember what voices of 
 gratified patriotism, what shouts of en- 
 thusiastic hope, wliat acclamations rent 
 the air, how many eyes were suffused 
 •with tears of joy, how cordially each 
 man pressed the hand of him who wa,s 
 next to him, when, standing in the OY>en 
 air, in the centre of the city, in the view 
 of assembled thousands, the first Presi- 
 
312 
 
 PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 dent of the United States was heard 
 solemnly to pronounce the words of his 
 official oath, repeating them from the 
 lips of Chancellor Livingston. You 
 then thought, Gentlemen, that the 
 great work of the Revolution was ac- 
 complished. Youthen felt that you had 
 a governmei.* ; that the [Jnited States 
 were th'st , L^deed, united. Every be- 
 nignant star seemed to shed its selectest 
 influence on that auspicious hour. Here 
 were heroes of the Revolution; here were 
 sages of the Convention ; here were 
 minds, disciplined and schooled in all 
 the varic-.::s fortunes of the country, act- 
 ing now in several relations, but all co- 
 operating to the same great end, the 
 successful administration of the new 
 and untried Constitution. And he, — 
 how shall I speak of himV — he was at 
 the head, who was already first in war, 
 who was already first in the hearts of 
 his coiuitrymen, and who was now shown 
 also, by the unanimous suffrage of the 
 country, to be first in peace. 
 
 Gentlemen, how gloriously have the 
 hopes then indulged been fulfilled! 
 W'hose expectation was then so san- 
 guine, I may almost ask, whose imagi- 
 nation then so extravagant, as to run 
 forward, and contemplate as probable, 
 the one half of what has been accom- 
 plished in forty years? "Wlio among 
 you can go back to 1789, and see what 
 this city, and this country, too, then 
 were; and, beholding what they now 
 are, can be ready to consent that the 
 Constitution of the L'nited States shall 
 be weakened, — dishonored, — nullijied ? 
 
 Gentlemen, before I leave these pleas- 
 ant recollections, I feel it an irresistible 
 impulse of duty to pay a tribute of re- 
 spect to another distinguished person, 
 not, indeed, a fellow-citizen of your 
 own, but associated witli those I have 
 already mentioned in important labors, 
 and an early and indefatigable friend 
 and advocate in the great cause of the 
 Constitution. I refer to Mu. Madison. 
 I am aware. Gentlemen, that a tribute 
 of regard from me to him is of little 
 importance ; but if it shall receive your 
 approbation and sanction, it will be- 
 comp of value. Mr. ^Madison, thanks 
 
 to a kind Providence, is yet among iha 
 living, and there is certainly no other 
 individual living, to whom the country 
 is so much indebted for the blessincrs oi 
 the Constitution. lie was one of the 
 commissioners who met at Annapolis, 
 in 1786, to which meeting I have al- 
 ready referred, and which, to the gi-eat 
 credit of Virginia, had its origin in a 
 proceeding of that State. He was a 
 member of the Convention of 17S7, and 
 of that of Virginia in the following 
 year. He was thus intimately acquaint- 
 ed with the whole progress of the for- 
 mation of the Constitution, from its 
 very first step to its final adoption. K 
 ever man had the means of understand- 
 ing a written instrument, ^Ir. Madison 
 has the means of understanding the Con- 
 stitution. Lf it be possible to know what 
 was designed by it, he can tell us. It 
 was in this city, that, in conjunction 
 with ]\Ir. Hamilton and Mr. Jay, he 
 MTote the numbers of the Federalist; 
 and it was in this city that he com- 
 menced his brilliant career under the 
 new Constitution, having been elected 
 into the House of Representatives of 
 the first Congress. The recorded votes 
 and debates of those times show his ac- 
 tive and efficient agency in every im- 
 portant measure of that Congress. The 
 necessary organization of the govern- 
 ment, the arrangement of the depart- 
 ments, and especially the paramount 
 subject of reA'enue, engaged his atten- 
 tion, and divided his labors. 
 
 The legislative history of the first two 
 or three years of the government is full 
 of instruction. It presents, in striking 
 light, the evils intended to bo remedied 
 by the Constitution, and the provisions 
 which were deemed essential to tlie 
 remedy of tliose evils. It exhil)it!>i the 
 country, in the moment of its change 
 from a weak and ill-defined confederacy 
 of States, into a general, efficient, but 
 still restrained and limited government. 
 It shows the first working of our pe- 
 culiar system, moved, as it then was, 
 by master hands. 
 
 Gentlemen, for one, I confess I like 
 to dwell on this part of our history. It 
 IS good for us to be here. It is good for 
 
PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 n'd 
 
 03 to study the situation of the country 
 
 at this period, to survey its diiliculties, 
 to look at the conduct of its public men, 
 to see how they struggled with obstacles, 
 real and formidable, and how gloriously 
 they brought the Union out of its state 
 of depression and distress. Truly, Gen- 
 tlemen, these founders and fathers of 
 the Constitution were great men, and 
 thoroughly furnished for every good 
 work. All that reading and learning 
 could do ; all that talent and intelli- 
 gence coidd do; and, what perhaps is 
 still more, all that long experience in 
 difficult and troubled times and a deep 
 and iutinnite practical knowledge of the 
 condition of tlie country could do, — 
 conspii-ed to fit them for the great busi- 
 ness of forming a general, but limited 
 government, embracing common objects, 
 extending over all the States, and yet 
 touching the power of the States no fur- 
 ther than those common objects require. 
 I confess I love to linger around these 
 original fountains, and to drink deej) of 
 their waters. I love to imbibe, in as 
 full measure as I may, the spirit of those 
 who laid the foundations of the govern- 
 ment, and so wisely and skilfully bal- 
 anced and adjusted its bearings and pro- 
 portions. 
 
 Having been afterwards, for eight 
 years. Secretary of State, and as long 
 President, Mr. Madison has had an ex- 
 j>erience in the affairs of the Constitu- 
 tion, certainly second to no man. More 
 than any other man living, and perhaps 
 more than any other who has lived, his 
 whole public life has been incorporated, 
 as it were, into the Constitution; in the 
 original conception and project of at- 
 tempting to form it, in its actual fram- 
 ing, in explaining and recommending it, 
 by speaking and writing, in assisting at 
 tlie fii-st organization of the government 
 ■under it, and in a long administration 
 of its executive powers, — in these vari- 
 ous ways he has lived near the Consti- 
 tution, and with the power of imbibing 
 its true spirit, and inhaling its very 
 breath, from its first pulsation of life. 
 Again, therefore, I ask. If he cannot 
 tell us what the Constitution is, and 
 what it means, who can? He had re- 
 
 tii-ed with the respect and regard of the 
 connnunity, and might naturally be sup- 
 posed not willing to interfere again in 
 matters of political concern, lie has, 
 nevertheless, not withholden his opin- 
 ions on the vital question discussed on 
 that occasion, which has caused this 
 meeting. He has stated, with an ac- 
 curacy almost ]ieculiar to himsolf, and 
 so stated as, in my oj-nnion, to place al- 
 most beyond further controversy, the 
 true doctrines of the Constitution. He 
 has stated, not notions too loose and ir- 
 regular to be called even a thcoi-y, not 
 ideas struck out by the feeling of pres- 
 ent inconvenience or supposed male- 
 administration, not suggestions of ex- 
 pediency, or evasions of fair and 
 straightforward construction, but ele- 
 mentary principles, clear and sound dis- 
 tinctions, and indisputable truths. I 
 am sure. Gentlemen, that I speak your 
 sentiments, as well as my own, when 1 
 say, that, for nuiking public so clearly 
 and distinctly as he has done his 
 own opinions on these vital questions 
 of constitutional law, Mr. ^ladison has 
 fmmded a new and strong claim on the 
 gratitude of a grateful country. You 
 will think, with me, that, at his ad- 
 vanced age, and in the enjoyment of 
 general respect and approbation for a 
 long career of public services, it was an 
 act of distinguished patriotism, when 
 he saw notions promulgated and main 
 tained which he deemed unsound and 
 dangerous, not to hesitate to come for- 
 ward and to place the weight of his ow^n 
 opinion in what he deemed the right 
 scale, come what come might. I am 
 sure. Gentlemen, it cannot be doubted, 
 — the manifestation is clear, — that the 
 country feels deeply the force of this new 
 obligation.^ 
 
 Gentlemen, what I have eoid of the 
 benefits of the Constitution to your 
 city might be said, with little change, 
 in respect to every other part of the 
 countiy. Its benefits are not exclusive. 
 What has it left undone, which any 
 government coiUd do, for the whole 
 
 1 The reference is to Mr. Madison's letter on 
 the subji'ct of NuUiJicntion, in the North Ameri' 
 can Review, Vol. X.\XI. p. 537. 
 
814 
 
 rUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 country? In -what condition has it 
 placed lis? AMiere do we now stand? 
 Are we elevated, or degraded, by its 
 operation? "\Miat is our condition un- 
 der its influence, at the very moment 
 when some talk of arresting its power 
 and breaking its unity? Do we not feel 
 ourselves on an eminence? Do we not 
 challenge the respect of the whole world? 
 "What has placed us thus high? \\'hat 
 has given us this just pride? What else 
 is it, but the unrestrained and free op- 
 eration of that same Federal Constitu- 
 tion, which it has been proposed now 
 to hamper, and manacle, and nullify? 
 Who is there among us, that, should he 
 find himself on any spot of the earth 
 where human beings exist, and where 
 the existence of other nations is known, 
 would not be proud to say, I am an 
 American? I am a countryman of 
 Washington? I am a citizen of that 
 republic, which, although it has sud- 
 denly sprung up, yet there are none on 
 the globe who have ears to hear, and 
 have not heard of it ; who have eyes to 
 see, and have not read of it; who know 
 any thing, and yet do not know of its 
 existence and its glory? And, Gentle- 
 men, let me now reverse the picture. 
 Let me ask, who there is among us, if 
 he were to be found to-morrow in one 
 of the civilized countries of Europe, and 
 were there to learn that this goodly form 
 of government had been overthrown, 
 that the United States were no longer 
 united, that a death-blow had been 
 struck upon their bond of union, that 
 they themselves had destroyed their 
 chief good and their chief honor, — who 
 is there whose heart would not sink 
 within him? Who is there who would 
 not cover his face for very shame? 
 
 At this very moment, Gentlemen, our 
 country is a general refuge for the dis- 
 tressed and the persecuted of other na- 
 tions. Whoever is in affliction from 
 political occurrences in his own country 
 looks here for shelter. Whether he be 
 republican, flj'ing from the oppression of 
 thrones, or whether he be monarch or 
 monarchist, fl>"ing from thrones that 
 crumble and fall under or around him, 
 he feels equal assurance, that, if he get 
 
 foothold on our soil, his i>erson will be 
 safe, and his rights will be respected. 
 
 And who will venture to say, that, in 
 any government now existing in the 
 world, there is greater security for per- 
 sons or property than in that of the 
 United States? We have tried these 
 popular institutions in times of great ex- 
 citement and commotion, and they hav«» 
 stood, substantiallv, firm and steadv, 
 while the fountains of the great politi- 
 cal deep have been elsewhere broken up ; 
 while thrones, resting on ages of pre- 
 scription, have tottered and fallen; and 
 while, in other countries, the earthquake 
 of unrestrained popular commotion has 
 swallowed up all law, and all liberty, and 
 all right together. Our government has 
 been tried in peace, and it has lieen tried 
 in war, and has proved itself fit for both. 
 It has been assailed from without, and 
 it has successfully resisted the shock; 
 it has been disturbed within, and it has 
 effectually quieted the distiu'bance. It 
 can stand trial, i1 can stand assault, it 
 can stand adversity, it can stand every 
 thing, but the marring of its own beauty, 
 and the weakening of its own strength. 
 It can stand every thing'but the effects 
 of our own rashness and our o'mi folly. 
 It can stand every thing but disorganiza- 
 tion, disunion, and nullification. 
 
 It is a striking fact, and as true as it 
 is striking, that at this very* moment, 
 among all the principal civilized states 
 of the world, that government is most 
 secure against the danger of popular 
 commotion which is itself entii-ely popu- 
 lar. It seems, indeed, that the submis- 
 sion of every thing to the public will, 
 under constitutional restraints, imposed 
 by the people themselves, furnishes it- 
 self security that they will desire noth- 
 ing ■wTong. 
 
 Certain it is, that popular, constitu- 
 tional liberty-, as we enjoy it, appears, 
 in the present state of the world, as 
 sure and stable a basis for government 
 to rest upon, as any government of en- 
 lightened .states can find, or does find. 
 Certain it is, that, in these times of 
 so much popular knowledge, and so 
 much popular activity, those govern- 
 ments which do not admit the people 
 
PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW TOKIv. 
 
 31n 
 
 to partake in their administration, but 
 keep them under and beneath, sit on 
 materials for an explosion, ■which may 
 take place at any moment, and blow 
 them into a thousand atoms. 
 
 Gentlemen, let any man who would 
 dec^rade and enfeeble the national Con- 
 etitution, let any man who would nullify 
 its laws, stand forth and tell us what he 
 would wish What does he propose? 
 "Whatever he may be, and whatever sub- 
 stitute he may hold forth, I am sure the 
 people of this country will decline his 
 kind interference, and hold on by the 
 Constitution which they possess. Any 
 one who would willingly destroy it, I 
 rejoice to know, would be looked upon 
 with abhorrence. It is deeply intrenched 
 in the regards of the people. Doubtless 
 it may be undermined by artful aTid 
 long-continued hostility; it may be im- 
 perceptibly weakened by secret attack; 
 it may be insidiously shorn of its powers 
 by slow degrees; the public vigilance 
 may be lulled, and when it awakes, it 
 may find the Constitution frittered away 
 In these modes, or some of them, it is 
 possible that the union of the States 
 may be dissolved. 
 
 But if the general attention of the 
 people be kept alive, if they see the in- 
 tended mischief before it is effected, 
 they will prevent it by their own sover- 
 eign power. They will interpose them- 
 selves between the meditated blow and 
 the object of their regard and attach- 
 moTit. Next to the controlling authority 
 of the people themselves, the preserva- 
 tion of the government is mainly com- 
 mitted to those who administer it. If 
 conducted in wisdom, it cannot but 
 stand strong. Its genuine, original 
 spirit is a patriotic, liberal, and gener- 
 ous spirit; a spirit of conciliation, of 
 moderation, of candor, and charity; a 
 spirit of friendship, and not a spirit of 
 hostility toward the States; a spirit 
 careful not to exceed, and equally care- 
 ful not to relinquish, its just powers. 
 While no interest can or ought to feel 
 itself shut out from the benefits of the 
 Constitution, none should consider those 
 benefits as exclusively its own. The 
 interests of all must be consulted, and 
 
 reconciled, and provided for, as far as 
 possible, that all may perceive the bene 
 fits of a united government. 
 
 Among other things, we are to re- 
 member that new States have arisen, 
 possessing already an immense popula- 
 tion, spreading and thickening over vast 
 regions which were a wilderness when 
 the Constitution was adopted. Those 
 States are not, like New York, diiectly 
 connected with maritime commerce. 
 They are entirely agricultural, and need 
 markets for consumption ; and thf*y need, 
 too, access to those markets. It is the 
 duty of the government to bring the 
 interests of these new States into the 
 Union, and incorporate them closely in 
 the family compact. Gentlemen, it is 
 not impracticable to reconcile these vari- 
 ous interests, and so to administer the 
 government as to make it useful to all. 
 It was never ea.sier to administer the 
 government than it is now. AVe are 
 beset with none, or with few, of its 
 original difficulties; and it is a time of 
 gi-eat general prosperity and happiness. 
 Shall we admit ourselves incompetent 
 to carry on the government, so as to be 
 satisfactory to the whole country? Shall 
 we admit that there has so little de- 
 scended to us of the wisdom and pru- 
 dence of our fathers? If the government 
 could be administered in Washington's 
 time, when it was yet new, when the 
 country was heavily in debt, when foreign 
 relations were in a threatening condition, 
 and when Indian wars pressed on the 
 frontiers, can it not be administered 
 now ? Let us not acknowledge our- 
 selves so unequal to our duties. 
 
 Gentlemen, on the occasion referred 
 to by the chair, it became necessary to 
 consider the judicial power, and 'ts 
 proper functions under the ConstitutiDu. 
 In every free and balanced government, 
 this is a most essential and important 
 power. Indeed, I think it is a remark 
 of Mr. Hume, that the administration of 
 justice seems to be the leading object of 
 institutions of government; that legi.s- 
 latm-es assemble, that armies are em- 
 bodied, that both war and peace are 
 made, with a sort of ultimate reference 
 to the proper administration of laws, 
 
816 
 
 rUBLIC DINNER xVT NEW YORK. 
 
 ami the judicial protoction of private 
 rights. The judicial power comes home 
 to every man. If the legislature passes 
 incorrect or unjust general laws, its mem- 
 bers bear the evil as well as others. But 
 judicature acts on individuals. It touches 
 every private right, every private in- 
 terest, and almost every private feeling. 
 ^^^lat we possess is hardly fit to be 
 called Dur own, unless we feel secure in 
 its possession; and this security, this 
 feeling of perfect safety, caunot exist 
 under a wicked, or even under a weak 
 and ignorant, administration of the 
 laws. There is no happiness, there is 
 no liberty, there is no enjoyment of life, 
 unless a man can say when he rises in 
 the morning, I shall be subject to the 
 decision of no unjust judge to-day. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, the judicial depart- 
 ment, under the Constitution of the 
 United States, possesses still higher 
 duties. It is true, that it may be 
 called on, and is occasionally called on, 
 to decide questions which are, in one 
 sense, of a political nature. The general 
 and State governments, both established 
 by the peojile, are established for differ- 
 ent purposes, and with different powers. 
 Between those powers questions may 
 arise; and who shall decide them? 
 Some provision for this end is absolutely 
 necessary. "What shall it be? This was 
 the question before the Conveiition ; and 
 various schemes were suggested. It was 
 foreseen that the States might inadver- 
 tently pass laws inconsistent with the 
 Constitution of the United States, or 
 with acts of Congress. At least, laws 
 might be passed which would be charged 
 with such inconsistency. How should 
 these questions be disposed of? Where 
 shall the power of judging, in cases of 
 alleged interference, be lodged? One 
 suggestion in the Convention was, to 
 make it an executive power, and to 
 lodge it in the hands of the President, 
 by requiring all State laws to be sub- 
 mitted to him, that he might negative 
 sucli as he thought appeared repugnant 
 to the general Constitution. This idea, 
 perhaps, may have been borrowed from 
 the power exercised by the crown over 
 the laws of the Colonies. It would evi- 
 
 dently have been, not only an inconven- 
 ient and troublesome proceeding, but 
 dangerous also to the powers of the 
 States. It was not pressed. It was 
 thought wiser and safer, on the whole, 
 to require State legislatures and State 
 judges to take an oath to support the 
 Constitution of the United States, and 
 then leave the States at liberty to j-^ass 
 whatever laws they pleased, and if in- 
 terference, in point of fact, should ari.se, 
 to refer the question to judicial decision. 
 To this end, the judicial power, under 
 the Constitution of the United States, 
 was made coextensive with the legisla- 
 tive power. It was extended to all 
 cases arising under the Constitution and 
 the laws of Congress. The jiuliciary 
 became thus possessed of the authority 
 of deciding, in the last resort, in all 
 cases of alleged interference, between 
 State laws and the Constitution and 
 laws of Congress. 
 
 Gentlemen, this is the actual Consti- 
 tution, this is the law of the land. 
 There may be those who think it un- 
 necessary, or who would prefer a differ- 
 ent mode of deciding such questions. 
 But this is the established mode, and, 
 till it be altered, the courts can no more 
 decline their duty on these occasions 
 than on other occasions. But can any 
 reasonable man doubt the expediency of 
 this provision, or suggest a better? Is 
 it not absolutely essential to the peace 
 of the country that this power should 
 exist somewhere ? Where can it exist, 
 better than where it now does exist ? 
 The national judiciary is the common 
 tribunal of the whole country. It is 
 organized by the common authority, and 
 its places filled by the common agent. 
 Tliis is a plain and practical provision. 
 It was framed by no bunglers, nor by 
 any wild theorists. And who can say 
 that it has failed? Who can find sub- 
 stantial fault with its operation or its 
 results? The great question is, whether 
 we shall provide for the peac(>able decis- 
 ion of cases of collision. Shall they be 
 decided by law, or by force ? Shall the 
 decisions be decisions of peace, or decis- 
 ions of war? 
 
 On the occasion which has given risa 
 
PUHLTC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 317 
 
 to this moeting, the proposition con- 
 tended for in opposition to tlie doctrine 
 just stated was that every State, under 
 certain supposed exigencies, and in cer- 
 tain supposed cases, mi^-ht d<'cide for 
 itself, and act for itself, and opjwse its 
 own force to the execution of the laws. 
 Jjy what argument, do you imagine. 
 Gentlemen, was such a proposition 
 maintained? I should call it meta- 
 physical and subtle; but these terms 
 would imply at least ingenuity, and 
 some degree of plausibility; whereas the 
 argument appears to me plain assump- 
 tion, mere perverse construction of plain 
 language in the body of the Constitution 
 itself. As I understand it, when put 
 forth in its revised and most authentic 
 shape, it is this : that the Constitution 
 jirovides that any amendments may be 
 made to it which shall be agreed to by 
 three fourths of the States; there is, 
 therefore, to be nothing in the Constitu- 
 tion to which three fourths of the States 
 have not agi'eed. All this is true; but 
 then comes this inference, namely, 
 that, when one State denies the con- 
 stitutionality of any law of Congress, 
 she may arrest its execution as to 
 herself, and keep it airested, till the 
 States can all be consulted by their 
 conventions, and three fourths of them 
 shall have decided that the law is con- 
 stitutional. Indeed, the inference is 
 still stranger than this; for State con- 
 ventions have no authority to construe 
 the Constitution, though they have 
 authority to amend it; therefore the 
 argument must prove, if it prove any 
 thing, that, when any one State de- 
 nies that any particular power is in- 
 cluded in the Constitution, it is to be 
 considered as not included, and cannot 
 be found there till three fourths of the 
 State*- agree to insert it. In short, the 
 result of the whole is, that, though it 
 requires three fourths of the States to 
 insert any thing in the Constitution, yet 
 any or^e State can strike any thing out 
 of it. For the power to strike out, and 
 the power of deciding, without appeal, 
 upon the construction of what is already 
 in. are substantially and practically the 
 same. 
 
 And, Gentlemen, what a spectacle 
 should we have exhibited under the 
 actual operation of notions like these! 
 At the very moment when our govern- 
 ment was quoted, praised, and com- 
 mended all over the world, when the 
 friends of republican liberty every- 
 where were gazing at it with delight, 
 and were in perfect admiration at the 
 harmony of its movements, one State 
 steps forth, and, by the power of nulli- 
 fication, breaks up the whole system, 
 and scatters the bright chain of the 
 Union into as many sundered links as 
 there are separate States! 
 
 Seeing the true grounds of the Con- 
 stitution thus attacked, I raised my 
 voice in its favor, I must confess with 
 no preparation or previous intention. I 
 can hardly say that I embarked in the 
 contest from a sense of duty. It was 
 an instantaneous impulse of inclination, 
 not acting against duty, I trust, but 
 hardly waiting for its suggestions. I 
 felt it to be a contest for the inte2rritv 
 of the Constitution, and I was ready to 
 enter into it, not thinking, or caring, 
 personally, how I might come out. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have true pleasure in 
 saying that I trust the crisis has in 
 some measure passed by. The doctrine.s 
 of nullification have received a severe 
 and stern rebuke from public opinion. 
 The general reprobation of the country 
 has been cast upon them. Recent ex- 
 pressions of tlie most numeroiis branch 
 of the national legislature are decisive 
 and imposing. Everywhere, the gen- 
 eral tone of public feeling is for the 
 Constitution. While much will be 
 yielded — every thing, almost, but the 
 integrity of the Constitution, and the 
 essential interests of the country — to 
 the cause of mutual harmony and mut- 
 ual conciliation, no ground can be 
 granted, not an inch, to menace and 
 bluster. Indeed, menace and bluster, 
 and the putting forth of daring, imcon- 
 stitutional doctrines, are, at this very 
 moment, the chief obstacles to nuitual 
 harmony and satisfactory accommoda- 
 tion Men cannot well reason, and con- 
 fer, and take counsel together, ab(>ut the 
 discreet exercise of a power, with those 
 
318 
 
 rUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 who deny that any such power right- 
 fully exists, and who threaten to blow 
 up tlie whole Constitution if they can- 
 not otherwise get rid of its operation. 
 It is matter of sincere gratification, 
 Gentlemen, that the voice of this great 
 State has been so clear and strong, and 
 her vote all but unanimous, on the most 
 interesting of these occasions, in the 
 IIouso of Representatives. Certainly, 
 sucii respect to the Union becomes New 
 York. It is consistent with her inter- 
 ests and her character. That singularly 
 prosperous State, which now is, and is 
 likely to continue to be, the greatest 
 link in the chain of the Union, will 
 ever be, I am sure, the strongest link 
 also. The great States which lie in her 
 neighborhood agreed with her fully in 
 this matter. Pennsylvania, I believe, 
 was loyal to the Union, to a man; and 
 Ohio raises her voice, like that of a 
 lion, against whatsoever threatens dis- 
 union and dismemberment. This har- 
 mony of sentiment is truly gratifying. 
 It is not to be gainsaid, that the union 
 of opinion in this great central mass of 
 our population, on this momentous point 
 of the Constitution, augurs well for our 
 future prosi>erity and security. 
 
 I have said, Gentlemen, what I verily 
 believe to be true, that there is no dan- 
 ger to the Union from open and avowed 
 attacks on its essential principles. Noth- 
 ing is to be feared from those who will 
 march up boldly to their own projiosi- 
 tions, and tell us that they mean to an- 
 nihilate powers exorcised by Congress. 
 But, certainly, there are dangers to the 
 Constitution, and we ought not to shut 
 our eyes to tlusm. We know the im- 
 portance of a firm and intelligent judi- 
 ciary; but how shall we secure the 
 continuance of a firm and intelligent 
 judiciary? Gentlemen, the judiciary is 
 in the appointment of the executive 
 power. It cannot continue or renew 
 itself. Its vacancies are to be filled in 
 the ordinary modes of executive ap- 
 pointment. If the time shall ever come 
 (which Heaven avert), when men shall 
 be placed in the supreme tribunal of the 
 country, who entertain opinions hostile 
 to the just powers of the Constitution, 
 
 we shall then be visited by an evil defy- 
 ing all remedy. Our case will be past 
 surgery. From that moment the Con- 
 stitution is at an end. If they who are 
 appointed to defend the castle shall be- 
 tray it, woe betide those within! If I 
 live to see that day come, I shall despair 
 of the country. I shall be jirepai-ed to 
 give it back to all its former afllictions, 
 in the days of the Confederation. I 
 know no security against the possibility 
 of this evil, but an awakened public 
 vigilance. I know no safety, but in 
 that state of public opinion which shall 
 lead it to rebuke and put down every 
 attempt, either to gi-atify party by judi- 
 cial appointments, or to dilute the Con- 
 stitution by creating a court which shall 
 construe away its provisions. If mem- 
 bers of Congress betray their trust, the 
 people will find it out before they are 
 ruined. If the President should at any 
 time violate his duty, his term of office 
 is short, and popular elections may suj>- 
 ply a seasonable remedy. But the judges 
 of the Supreme Court possess, for very 
 good reasons, an independent tenure of 
 office. No election reaches them. If, 
 with this tenure, they betray their trusts, 
 Heaven save us ! Let us hope for better 
 results. The past, certainly, may en- 
 courage us. Let us hope that we shall 
 never see the time when there shall exist 
 such an awkward posture of affairs, as 
 that the government shall be found iu 
 opposition to the Constitution, and when 
 the guardians of the Union shall become 
 its betrayers. 
 
 Gentlemen, our country stands, at the 
 present time, on connnanding ground. 
 Older nations, with different systems of 
 government, may be somewhat slow to 
 acknowledge all that justly belongs to 
 us. But we may feel without vanity, 
 that America is doing her part in the 
 great work of improving human atTairs. 
 There are two priuci[)les. Gentlemen, 
 strictly and purely American, which are 
 now likely to prevail throughout the civ- 
 ilized world. Indeed, they seem the 
 necessary result of the progress of civ- 
 ilization and knowledge. These are, 
 first, popular governments, restrained 
 
PUBLIC DINNER AT NEW YORK. 
 
 319 
 
 by written constitutions; and, secondly, 
 universal education. I'upular govern- 
 ments and general education, acting 
 and reacting, mutually producing and 
 reproducing each other, are the mighty 
 agencies which in our days appear to 
 be exciting, stimulating, and changing 
 civilized societies. ]Man, everywhere, is 
 now found demanding a participation 
 in government, — and he will not be 
 refused ; and he demands knowledge as 
 necessary to self-government. On the 
 basis of those two principles, liberty 
 and knowledge, our own American sys- 
 tems rest. Thus far we have not been 
 disappointed in their results. Our 
 existing institutions, raised on these 
 foundations, have conferred on us al- 
 most unmixed happiness. Do we hope 
 to better our condition by change? 
 "When we shall have nullified the pres- 
 ent Constitution, what are we to receive 
 in its place? As fathers, do we wish 
 for our children better government, or 
 better laws? As members of society, 
 as lovers of our country, is there any 
 thing we can desire for it better than 
 that, as ages and centuries roll over it, 
 it may possess the same invaluable in- 
 stitutions which it now enjoys? For 
 my part. Gentlemen, I can only say, 
 that I desij-e to thank the beneficent 
 Author of all good for being born where 
 I was born, and when I was born; that 
 the portion of human existence allotted 
 to me has been meted out to me in this 
 goodly land, and at this interesting 
 period. I rejoice that I have lived to 
 see so much development of truth, so 
 much progress of liberty, so much dif- 
 fusion of virtue and happiness. And, 
 through good report and evil report, it 
 w ill bo my consolation to be a citizen of 
 •1 republic unequalled in the annals of 
 the world for the freedom of its institu- 
 tions, its high prosperity, and the pros- 
 pects of good which yet lie before it. 
 Our course. Gentlemen, is onward, 
 straight onward, and forward. Let us 
 not tui'u to the right hand, nor to the 
 
 left. Our path is marked out for us, 
 clear, plain, bright, distinctly defined, 
 like the milky way across the heavens. 
 If we are true to our country, in our 
 day and generation, and those who come 
 after us shall be true to it also, assuredly, 
 assuredly, we shall elevate her to a pitch 
 of prosperity and happiness, of honor 
 and power, never yet reached by any 
 nation beneath the sun. 
 
 Gentlemen, before I resume my seat, 
 a highly gratifying duty remains lo bo 
 performed. In signifying your senti- 
 ments of regard, you have kindly chosen 
 to select as your organ for expressing 
 them the eminent person ' near whom I 
 stand. I feel, I cannot well say how 
 sensibly, the manner in which he has 
 seen fit to speak on this occasion. 
 Gentlemen, if I may be supposed tc 
 have made any attainment in the knowl- 
 edge of constitutional law, he is among 
 the masters in whose schools I have been 
 taught. You see near him a distin- 
 guished magistrate, 2 long associated 
 with him in judicial labors, which have 
 conferred lasting benefits and lasting 
 character, not only on the State, but on 
 the whole country. Gentlemen, I ac- 
 knowledge myself much their debtor. 
 While yet a youth, unknown, and with 
 little expectation of becoming known 
 beyond a very limited circle, I have 
 passed days and nights, not of tedious, 
 but of happy and gratified labor, in the 
 study of the judicature of the State of 
 New Yoik. I am most happy to have 
 this public opportunity of acknowledg- 
 ing the obligation, and of repaying it, as 
 far as it can be repaid, by the poor trib- 
 ute of my profound regard, and the 
 earnest expression of my sincere re- 
 spect. 
 
 Gentlemen, I will no longer detaijj 
 you than to propose a toast: — 
 
 The City of Xew York; herself the 
 noblest eulogy on the Union of the 
 States. 
 
 1 Chancellor Kent, the presiding (iflicfr. 
 
 2 Judjje Spencer. 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO OF THE UNITED 
 STATES BANK BILL. 
 
 A SPEECH DELIVERED IX THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 
 llTH OF JULY, 1832, ON THE PRESIDENT 'S VETO OF THE BANK BILI^ 
 
 ^Ir. Presidext, — Xo one ^vill deny 
 the high importance of the subject now 
 before us. Congress, after full deliber- 
 ation and discussion, has passed a bill, 
 by decisive majoiities, in both houses, for 
 extending the duration of the Bank of 
 the United States. It has not adopted 
 this measure until its attention had 
 been called to the subject, in three suc- 
 cessive annual messages of the Presi- 
 dent. The bill having been thus passed 
 by both liouses, and having been duly 
 presented to the President, instead of 
 signing and approving it, he has re- 
 turned it with objections. Tiiese objec- 
 tions go against the whole substance of 
 the law originally creating the bank. 
 They deny, in effect, that the bank is 
 constitutional ; they deny that it is expe- 
 dient ; they deny that it is necessary for 
 the public service. 
 
 It is not to be doubted, that the Con- 
 Btitution gives the President the power 
 which he has now exercised ; but while 
 the power is admitted, the grounds upon 
 which it has been exerted become fit 
 subjects of examination. The Consti- 
 tution makes it the duty of Congress, 
 in cases like this, to reconsider the 
 mea.suie which they have passed, to 
 weig^ the force of the President's ob- 
 jections to that measure, and to take a 
 new vote upon the question. 
 
 Before the Senate proceeds to this 
 second vote, I propose to make some 
 remarks uixin those objections. And, 
 in the first place, it is to be observed, 
 that they are such as to extinguish all 
 
 hope that the present bank, or any bank 
 at all resembling it, or resembling any 
 known similar institution, can ever re- 
 ceive his approbation. He states no 
 terms, no qualifications, no condition.?, no 
 modifications, which can reconcile him to 
 the essential provisions of the existing 
 charter. He is against the bank, and 
 against any bank constituted in a manner 
 known either to this or any other country. 
 One advantage, therefore, is certainly 
 obtained by presenting him the bill. It 
 has caused the President's sentiments 
 to be made known. There is no longer 
 any mystery, no longer a contest be- 
 tween hope and fear, or between those 
 prophets who predicted a velo and those 
 who foretold an approval. The bill is 
 negatived; the President has assumed 
 the responsibility of putting an i-nd to 
 the bank ; and the country must prepare 
 itself to meet that change in its concerns 
 which the expiration of the charter 
 will produce. Mr. President, I will not 
 conceal my opinion that the affairs of 
 the country are approaching an impor- 
 tant and dangerous crisis. At the very 
 moment of almost unparalleled general 
 prosperity, there appears an unaccount- 
 able disposition to destroy the most use- 
 ful and most approved institutions of the 
 government. Indeed, it seems to be in 
 the midst of all this national happiness 
 that some are found openly to question 
 the advantages of the Constitution itself, 
 and many more ready to embarrass the 
 exercise of its just power, weaken its 
 authority, and undermine its fouuda- 
 
THE TRESIDENTIAL VETO. 
 
 321 
 
 tions. How far these notions may be 
 carried, it is impossible yet to say. We 
 have before us the practical result of one 
 of them. The bank has fallen, or is to 
 fall. 
 
 It is now certain, that, without a 
 change in our public counsels, this bank 
 will not be continued, nor will any other 
 be established, which, according to the 
 general sense and language of mankind, 
 can be entitled to the name. Within 
 three years and nine months from the 
 present moment, the charter of the bank 
 expires; within that period, therefore, 
 it must wind up its concerns. It must 
 call in its debts, withdraw its bills from 
 circulation, and cease from all its ordi- 
 nary operations. All this is to be done 
 in three years and nine months; be- 
 cause, although there is a provision in 
 the charter rendering it lawful to use the 
 corporate name for two years after the 
 expiration of the charter, yet this is 
 allowed only for the purpose of suits 
 and for the sale of the estate belonging 
 to the bank, and for no other purpose 
 whatever. The whole active business 
 of the bank, its custody of public de- 
 posits, its transfer of public moneys, its 
 dealing in exchange, all its loans and 
 discounts, and all its issues of bills 
 for circulation, must cease and deter- 
 mine on or before the third day of 
 March, 1836; and within the same 
 period its debts must be collected, as no 
 new contract can be made with it, as a 
 corporation, for the renewal of loans, or 
 discount of notes or bills, after that time. 
 The President is of opinion, that this 
 time is long enough to close the concerns 
 of the institution without inconvenience. 
 His language is, " The time allowed the 
 bank to close its concerns is ample, and 
 if it has been well managed, its press- 
 ure will be light, and heavy only in case 
 its management has been bad. If, there- 
 fore, it shall produce distress, the fault 
 will be its own." Sir, this is all no more 
 than general statement, without fact o\ 
 argument to support it. We know what 
 *.he management of the bank has been, 
 md we know the present state of its af- 
 ♦■'airs. AVe can judge, therefore, whether 
 vt be probable that its capital can be all 
 
 called in, and the circulation of its 
 bills withdrawn, in three years and nine 
 months, by any discretion or prudence in 
 management, without producing distress. 
 The bank has discounted liberally, in 
 compliance with the wants of the com- 
 munity. Tlie amount due to it on loans 
 and discounts, in certain large divisions 
 of the country, is great; so great, that 
 I do not perceive how any man can be- 
 lieve that it can be paid, within the 
 time now limited, without distress. Let 
 us look at known facts. Thirty mil- 
 lions of the capital of the bank are now 
 out, on loans and discounts, in the 
 States on the Mississippi and its waters; 
 ten millions of which are loaned on the 
 discount of bills of exchange, foreign 
 and domestic, and twenty millions on 
 promissory notes. Now, Sir, how is it 
 possible that this vast amount can be 
 collected in so short a period without 
 suffering, by any management whatever? 
 We are to remember, that, when the 
 collection of this debt begins, at that 
 same time the existing medium of pay- 
 ment, that is, the circulation of the bills 
 of the bank, will begin also to be re- 
 strained and withdrawn; and thus the 
 means of payment must be limited just 
 when the necessity of making payment 
 becomes pressing. The whole debt is 
 to be paid, and within the same time 
 the whole circulation withdrawn. 
 
 The local banks, where there are such, 
 will be able to afford little assistance; 
 because they themselves will feel a full 
 share of the pressure. They will not be 
 in a condition to extend their discounts, 
 but, in aU probability, obliged to cur- 
 tail them. AVhence, then, are the means 
 to come for paying this debt? and in 
 what medium is payment to be made? 
 If all this may be done with but slight 
 pressure on the community, what course 
 of conduct is to accomplish it? How is 
 it to be done ? AMiat other thirty mil- 
 lions are to supply the place of these 
 thirty millions now to be called in? 
 What other circulation or medium of 
 payment is to be adopted in tlie place of 
 the bills of the bank? The message, 
 following a singular train of argument, 
 which had be*" used in this house, haa 
 
 21 
 
322 
 
 THE PRESIDENTLVL VETO 
 
 a loud lamentation upon the suffering of 
 the Western States on account of their 
 being obliged to pay even interest on 
 tliis debt. This payment of interest is 
 itself represented as exliausting their 
 means and ruinous to their prosperity. 
 But if the interest cannot be paid with- 
 out pressure, can both interest and prin- 
 cipal be paid in four years without 
 pressure? The truth is, the interest has 
 been paid, is paid, and may continue to 
 be paid, without any pressure at all; 
 because the money borrowed is profit- 
 ably employed by those who borrow it, 
 and the rate of interest which they pay 
 is at least two per cent lower than the 
 a'-tual value of money in that part of 
 the country. But to pay the whole 
 principal in less than four years, losing, 
 at the same time, the existing and ac- 
 customed means and facilities of pay- 
 ment created by the bank itself, and to 
 do this without extreme embarrassment, 
 without absolute distress, is, in my 
 judgment, impossible. I hesitate not to 
 say, that, as this veto travels to the 
 West, it will depreciate the value of 
 every man's property from the Atlantic 
 States to the capital of INIissouri. Its 
 effects will be felt in the price of lands, 
 the great and leading article of Western 
 property, in the price of crops, in the 
 products of labor, in the repression of 
 enterprise, and in embarrassment to 
 every kind of business and occupation. 
 I state this opinion strongly, because I 
 have no doubt of its truth, and am 
 willing its correctness should be judged 
 bj' the event. Without personal ac- 
 quaintance with the Western States, I 
 know enough of their condition to be 
 satisfied that what I have predicted must 
 happen. The people of the "\\'est are 
 rich, but their riches consist in their 
 immense quantities of excellent land, 
 in the products of these lands, and in 
 their spirit of enterprise. The actual 
 value of money, or rate of interest, with 
 them is high, because their pecuniaj-y 
 capital bears little proportion to their 
 landed interest. At an average rate, 
 money is not worth less than eight per 
 cent per annum throughout the whole 
 Western countiy, notwithstanding that 
 
 it has now a loan or ai. advance from 
 the bank of thirty millions, at six per 
 cent. To call in this loan, at the rate 
 of eight millions a year, in addition to 
 the Interest on the wnole, and to take 
 away, at the same time, that circulation 
 which constitutes so great a portion of 
 the medium of pajTuent throughout that 
 whole region, is an ojieration, which, 
 however wisely conducted, cannot but 
 inflict a blow on the community of tre- 
 mendous force and frightful consequen- 
 ces. The thing cannot be done without 
 distress, bankruptcy, and ruin, to many. 
 If the President had seen any practical 
 manner in which this change might be 
 effected without producing these conse- 
 quences, he would have rendered infinite 
 service to the community by pointing it 
 out. But he has pointed out nothing, 
 he has suggested nothing; he contents 
 himself with sajing, without giving any 
 reason, that, if the pressure be heavy, 
 the fault will be the bank's. I hope 
 this is not merely an attempt to fore- 
 stall opinion, and to throw on the bank 
 the responsibility of those evils which 
 threaten the country, for the sake of 
 removing it from himself. 
 
 The responsibility justly lies with him, 
 and there it ought to remain. A great 
 majority of the people are satisfied with 
 the baiik as it is, and desirous that it 
 should be continued. They wished no 
 change. The strength of this public 
 sentiment has carried the bill through 
 Congress, against all the influence of the 
 administration, and all the power of or- 
 ganized party. But the President haa 
 undertaken, on his own responsibility, 
 to arrest the measure, by refusing his 
 assent to the bill. He is answerable 
 for the consequences, therefore, which 
 necessarily follow the change which the 
 expiration of the bank charter may pro- 
 duce; and if these consequences shall 
 prove disastrous, they can fairly be as- 
 cribed to his policy only, and the policy 
 of his administration. 
 
 Although, Sir, I have spoken of the 
 effects of this veio in the Western coun- 
 try, it has not been because I considered 
 that part of the United States exclu- 
 sively affected by it. Some of the At- 
 
OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 
 
 323 
 
 lantio States may feel its consequences, 
 perhaps, aa sensibly as those of the 
 West, though not for the same reasons. 
 The concern manifested by Pennsylva- 
 nia for the renewal of the charter sliows 
 her sense of the importance of the bank 
 to her own interest, and that of the na- 
 tion. That great and enterprising State 
 lias entered into an extensive system of 
 Internal improvements, which necessa- 
 rily makes hea^•y demands on her credit 
 and her resources ; and by the sound and 
 acceptable cm-rency which the bank af- 
 fords, by the stability which it gives to 
 private credit, and bj' occasional ad- 
 vances, made in anticipation of her rev- 
 enues, and in aid of her great objects, 
 she has found herself benefited, doubt- 
 less, in no inconsiderable degree. Her 
 lefrislature has instructed her Senators 
 liere to advocate the renewal of the 
 charter, at this session. They have 
 obeyed her voice, and yet they have the 
 misfortune to find that, in the judgment 
 of the President, the measure is unconsti- 
 tutional, unnecessary, dangerous to libernj, 
 and is, moreover, ill-timed. 
 
 But, !Mr. President, it is not the local 
 interest of the West, nor the particular 
 interest of Pennsylvania, or any other 
 State, which has influenced Congress 
 in passing this bill. It has been gov- 
 erned by a wLse foresight, and by a 
 desire to avoid embarrassment in the 
 pecuniary concerns of the countiy, to 
 secure the safe collection and conven- 
 ient transmission of public moneys, to 
 maintain the circulation of the country, 
 sound and safe as it now happily is, 
 against the possible effects of a wild 
 spirit of speculation. Finding the bank 
 highly useful. Congress has thought fit 
 to provide for its continuance. 
 
 As to the time of passing this bill, it 
 would seem to be the last thing to be 
 thought of, as a ground of objection, by 
 the President; since, from the date of 
 his first message to the present time, he 
 has never failed to call our attention to 
 the subject with all possible apparent 
 earnestness. So early as December, 
 1829, in his message to the two houses, 
 he declares, that he " cannot, in justice 
 to the parties interested, too soon pre- 
 
 sent the subject to the deliberate consid- 
 eration of the legislature, in order to 
 avoid the evils resulting from precipi- 
 tancy, in a measure involving such 
 important princij^les and sucli deep pe- 
 cuniary interests." Aware of this early 
 invitation given to Congress to take up 
 the subject, by the President himself, 
 the WTiter of the message seems to vary 
 the ground of objection, and, instead of 
 complaining that the time of bringing 
 forward tliis measure was premature, to 
 insist, rather, that, after the report of 
 the committee of the otlier house, the 
 bank should have withdrawn its appli 
 cation for the present ! But that report 
 offers no just ground, surely, for such 
 withdrawal. The subject was before 
 Congress ; it was for Congress to decide 
 upon it, with all the light shed by the 
 report; and the question of postpone- 
 ment, having been made in both houses, 
 was lost, by clear majorities, in each. 
 Under such circumstances, it would 
 have been somewhat singular, to say the 
 least, if the bank itself had withdrawn 
 its application. It is indeed know^n to 
 everybody, that neither the report of 
 the committee, nor any thing contained 
 in that report, was relied on by the op- 
 posers of the renewal. If it has been 
 discovered elsewhere, that that report 
 contained matter important in itself, or 
 which should have led to f m-ther inquiry, 
 this may be proof of superior sagacity ; 
 for certainly no such thing was discerned 
 by either house of Congress. 
 
 But, Sir, do we not now see that it waa 
 time, and high time, to press this bill, 
 and to send it to the President? Does 
 not the event teach us, that the measure 
 was not brought forward one moment 
 too early? The time had come when 
 the people wished to know the decision 
 of the administration on the question of 
 the bank? Why conceal it, or postpone 
 its declaration? Why, as in regard to 
 the tariff, give out one set of opinions for 
 the North, and another for the South? 
 
 An important election is at hand, and 
 the renewal of the bank charter is a 
 pending object- of great interest, and 
 some excitement. Should not the opin- 
 ions of men high in office, and candi- 
 
324 
 
 THE PRESIDENTLVL VETO 
 
 dates for re-election, be known on this, 
 as on other important public questions? 
 Certainly, it is to be hoped that the 
 people of the United States are not yet 
 mere man-worshippeis, that they do not 
 choose their rulers ^\ithout some regard 
 to their political principles, or political 
 opinions. Were they to do this, it would 
 be to subject themselves voluntarily to 
 the evils which the hereditary transmis- 
 sion of power, independent of all personal 
 qualifications, inflic+s on other nations. 
 They will judge their public servants 
 by their acts, and continue or withhold 
 their confidence, as they shall think it 
 merited, or as they shall think it for- 
 feited. In every point of view, there- 
 fore, the moment had arrived, when it 
 became the duty of Congress to come to 
 a result, in regard to this highly impor- 
 tant measure. The interests of the gov- 
 ernment, the interests of the people, the 
 clear and indisputable voice of public 
 opinion, all called upon Congress to act 
 without further loss of time. It has 
 acted, and its act has been negatived by 
 the President; and this result of the 
 proceedings here places the question, 
 with all its connections and all its inci- 
 dents, fully before the people. 
 
 Before proceeding to the constitutional 
 question, there are some other topics, 
 treated in the message, which ought to 
 be noticed. It commences by an in- 
 flamed statement of what it calls the 
 "favor" bestowed upon the original 
 bank by the government, or, indeed, as 
 it is phrased, the " monopoly of its favor 
 and support"; and through the whole 
 message all possible changes are rung on 
 the "gratuity," the "exclusive privi- 
 leges," and "monopoly," of the bank 
 charter. Now, Sir, the truth is, that 
 the powers conferred on the bank are 
 such, and no others, as are usually con- 
 ferred on similar institutions. They 
 constitute no monopoly, although some 
 of them are of necessity, and with pro- 
 priety , exclusive privileges. ' ' The origi- 
 nal act," says the message, "operated 
 as a gratuity of many millions to the 
 Btockholders." What fair foundation 
 is there for this remark ? The stock- 
 holders received their charter, not gratu- 
 
 itously, but for a valuable consideration 
 in money, prescribed by Congress, and 
 actually paid. At some times the stock 
 has been above par^ at other times below 
 par, according to prudence in manage- 
 ment, or according to commercial occur- 
 rences. But if, by a judicious adminis- 
 tration of its affairs, it had kept its stocK 
 always above par, what pretence would 
 there be, nevertheless, for saying thit 
 such augmentation of its value was a 
 "gratuity" from government? The 
 message proceeds to declare, that the 
 present act proposes another donation, 
 another gratuity, to the same men, of at 
 least seven millions more. It seems to 
 me that this is an extraordinary state- 
 ment, and an extraordinary' style of argu- 
 ment, for such a subject and on such an 
 occasion. In the first place, the facts 
 are all assumed ; they are taken for true 
 without e\-idence. There are no proofs 
 that any benefit to that amount will 
 accrue to the stockholders, nor any ex- 
 perience to justify the expectation of it. 
 It rests on random estimates, or mere 
 conjecture. But suppose the continu- 
 ance of the charter should prove bene- 
 ficial to the stockholders ; do they not 
 pay for it? They give twice as much 
 for a chai-ter of fifteen years, as was 
 given before for one of tv\-eiity. And 
 if the proposed bonus, or premium, be 
 not, in the President's judgment, large 
 enough, would he, nevertheless, on such 
 a mere matter of opinion as that, nega- 
 tive the whole bill? May not Congress 
 be trusted to decide even on such a sub- 
 ject as the amount of the money premium 
 to be received by government for a char- 
 ter of this kind? 
 
 But, Sir, there is a larger and a much 
 more just view of this subject. The bill 
 was not passed for the pui-po.se of bene- 
 fiting the present stockliolders. Their 
 benefit, if any, is incidental and col- 
 lateral. Nor was it passed on any idea 
 that they had a right to a renewed char- 
 ter, although the message argues against 
 such right, as if it had been somewhere 
 set up and asserted. No such right 
 has been asserted by anybody. Con- 
 gi-ess passed the bill, not as a bounty or 
 a favor to the present stockholders, not 
 
OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 
 
 325 
 
 to comply with any demand of right on 
 then part; but to promote great public 
 interest-s, fcr great public objects. Every 
 bank must have some stockholders, un- 
 less it be such a bank as the President 
 has recommended, and in regard to 
 which he seems not likely to find much 
 concurrence of other men's opinions; 
 and if the stockholders, whoever they 
 may be, conduct the affairs of the bank 
 prudently, the expectation is always, of 
 course, that they will make it profitable 
 to themselves, as well as useful to the 
 public. If a bank charter is not to be 
 gi-anted, because, to some extent, it 
 may be profitable to the stockholders, 
 no charter can be granted. The objec- 
 tion lies against all banks. 
 
 Sir, the object aimed at by such insti- 
 tutions is to connect the public safety 
 and convenience with private interests. 
 It has been found by experience, that 
 banks are safest vmder private manage- 
 ment, and that government banks are 
 among the most dangerous of all inven- 
 tions. Now, Sir, the whole drift of the 
 message is to reverse the settled judg- 
 ment of all the civilized world, and to 
 set up government banks, independent 
 of private interest or private control. 
 For this purpose the message labors, 
 even beyond the measure of all its other 
 labors, to create jealousies and preju- 
 dices, on the ground of the alleged bene- 
 fit which individuals will derive from 
 the renewal of this charter. JMuch less 
 effort is made to show that government, 
 or the public, will be injured by the bill, 
 than that individuals will profit by it. 
 Following up the impulses of the same 
 spirit, the message goes on gravely to 
 allege, that the act, as passed by Con- 
 gress, proposes to make a present of 
 some millions of dollars to foreigners, 
 because a portion of the stock is held 
 by foreign 3rs. Sir, how would this sort 
 Df argument apply to other cases'? The 
 President has shown himself not only 
 willing, but anxious, to pay off the three 
 per cent stock of the United States at 
 par, notwithstanding that it is notorious 
 that foreigners are owners of the greater 
 part of it. AVhy should he not call that a 
 donation to foreigners of many millions ? 
 
 I will not dwell particularly on tl is part 
 of the message. Its tone and its argu- 
 ments are all in the same strain. It 
 speaks of the certain gain of the present 
 stockholders, of the value of the mo- 
 nopoly; it says that all monopolies are 
 granted at the expense of the public; 
 that the many millions which this bill 
 bestows on the stockholders come out of 
 the earnings of the people ; that, if gov- 
 ernment sells monopolies, it ought to sell 
 them in open market; that it is an er- 
 roneous idea, that the present stock- 
 holders have a prescriptive right either 
 to the favor or the bounty of govern- 
 ment; that the stock is in the hands of 
 a few, and that the whole American peo- 
 ple are excluded from competition in the 
 purchase of the monopoly. To all this 
 I say, again, that much of it is assump- 
 tion without proof; much of it is an 
 argument against that which nobody has 
 maintained or asserted ; and the rest of 
 it would be equally strong against any 
 charter, at any time. These objections 
 existed in their full strength, whatever 
 that was, against the first bank. They 
 existed, in like manner, against the 
 present bank at its creation, and will 
 always exist against all banks. Indeed, 
 all the fault found with the bill now 
 before us is, that it proposes to continue 
 tlie bank substantially as it now exists. 
 " All the objectionable principles of the 
 existing corporation," says the message, 
 "and most of its odious featui'es, are 
 retained without alleviation"; so that 
 the message is aimed against the bank, 
 as it has existed from the first, and 
 against any and all others resembling it 
 in its general features, 
 
 AUow me, now. Sir, to take notice of 
 an argument founded on the practical 
 operation of the bank. That argument 
 is this. Little of the stock of the bank 
 is held in the West, the capital being 
 chiefly owned by citizens of the Southern 
 and Eastern States, and by foreigners. 
 But the Western and Southwestern 
 States owe the bank a heavy debt, so 
 hea^y that the interest amounts to a 
 million six hundred thousand a year. 
 This interest is carried to the Eastern 
 States, or to Europe, annually, and its 
 
826 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 
 
 payment is a burden on the people of 
 the West, and a drain of their currency, 
 which no country can bear without in- 
 convenience and distress. The true 
 character and the whole value of this 
 argument are manifest by the mere state- 
 ment of it. The people of the AVest are, 
 from their situation, necessarily large 
 borrowers. They need money, capital, 
 and they borrow it, because they can 
 derive a benefit from its use, much be- 
 yond the interest which they pay. They 
 borrow at six per cent of the bank, al- 
 though the value of money with them is 
 at least as high as eight. Nevertheless, 
 although they borrow at this low rate of 
 interest, and although they use all they 
 borrow thus profitablj', yet they cannot 
 pay the interest without " inconvenience 
 and distress"; and then, Sii", follows 
 the logical conclusion, that, although 
 they cannot pay even the interest with- 
 out inconvenience and distress, yet less 
 than four years is ample time for the 
 bank to call in the whole, both princi- 
 pal and interest, without causing more 
 than a light pressure. This is the argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Then follows another, which may be 
 thus stated. It is competent to the 
 States to tax the property of their citi- 
 zens vested in the stock of this bank ; 
 but the power is denied of taxing the 
 stock of foreigners; therefore the stock 
 will be worth ten or fifteen per cent more 
 to foreigners tlian to residents, and will 
 of course inevitably leave the countiy, 
 and make the American people debtors 
 to aliens in nearly the whole amount 
 due the bank, and send across the At- 
 lantic from two to five millions of specie 
 every year, to pay the bank dividends. 
 
 'Mr. President, arguments like these 
 might be more readily disposed of, were 
 it not that the high and official source 
 from which they proceed imposes the 
 necessity of treating them with respect. 
 In the first place, it may safely be denied 
 that the stock of the bank is any more 
 valuable to foreigners than to our own 
 citizens, or an object of greater desire 
 to them, except in so far as capital may 
 be more abundant in the foreign country, 
 and therefore its owners more in want 
 
 of opportunity of investment. The for. 
 eign stockholder enjoys no exemption 
 from taxation. He is, of course, taxed 
 by his own government for his incomes, 
 derived from this as well as other prop- 
 erty; and this is a full answer to the 
 whole statement. But it may be added, 
 in the second place, that it is not the 
 practice of civilized states to tax the 
 property of foreigners under such cir- 
 cumstances. Do we tax, or did we ever 
 tax, the foreign holders of our public 
 debt? Does Pennsylvania, New York, 
 or Ohio tax the foreign holders of stock 
 in the loans contracted by either of 
 these States? Certainly not. Sir, I 
 must confess I had little expected to 
 see, on such an occasion as the present, 
 a labored and repeated attempt to pro- 
 duce an impression on the public opin- 
 ion unfavorable to the bank, from the 
 circumstance that foreigners are among 
 its stockholders. I have no hesitation in 
 saying, that I deem such a train of re- 
 mark as the message contains on this 
 point, coming from the President of the 
 United States, to be injurious to the 
 credit and character of the country 
 abroad ; because it manifests a jealousy, 
 a lurking disposition not to respect the 
 property, of foreigners invited hither by 
 our own laws. And, Sir, what is its 
 tendency but to excite this jealousy, and 
 create groundless prejudices? 
 
 From the commencement of the gov- 
 ernment, it has been thought desirable 
 to invite, rather than to repel, the in- 
 troduction of foreign capital. Our 
 stocks have all been open to foreign 
 subscriptions; and the State banks, in 
 like manner, are free to foreign owner- 
 ship. Whatever State has created a 
 debt has been willing that foreigners 
 should become purchasers, and desirous 
 of it. How long is it, Su', since Con- 
 gress itself passed a law vesting Jiew 
 powers in the President of the United 
 States over the cities in this District, 
 for the very purpose of increasing tlieir 
 credit abroad, the better to enable them 
 to borrow money to pay their subscrip- 
 tions to the Chesapeake and Ohio 
 Canal? It is easy to say that there is 
 danger to liberty, danger to indepen- 
 
OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 
 
 327 
 
 dence, in a bank open to foreign stock- 
 holders, because it is easy to say any 
 thing. But neither reason nor experi- 
 ence proves any such danger. The for- 
 eign stockliolder cannot be a director. 
 He has no voice even in the choice of 
 directors. His money is placed entirely 
 in the niauagement of the dhectors ap- 
 pointed by the President and Senate 
 and by the American stockholders. So 
 far as ther^t is dependence or influence 
 either way, it is to the disadvantage of 
 the foreign stockholder. He has parted 
 ■with the control over his own property, 
 instead of exercising control over the 
 property or over the actions of others. 
 And, Sir, let it now be added, in further 
 answer to this class of objections, that 
 experience has abundantly confuted 
 them all. This government has existed 
 forty-three years, and has maintained, 
 in full being and operation, a bank, 
 Buch as is now proposed to be renewed, 
 for thirty-six years out of the forty- 
 three. "We have never for a moment 
 had a bank not subject to every one of 
 these objections. Always, foreigners 
 might be stockholders; always, foreign 
 stock has been exempt from State tax- 
 ation, as much as at present; always, 
 the same power and privileges ; always, 
 all that which is now called a "mo- 
 nopoly," a " gratuity, " a "present," 
 have been possessed by the bank. And 
 yet there has been found no danger to 
 liberty, no introduction of foreign influ- 
 ence, and no accumulation of ii-respou- 
 sible power in a few hands. I cannot 
 but hope, therefore, that the people of 
 the United States will not now yield up 
 their judgment to those notions which 
 would reverse all our best experience, 
 and persuade us to discontinue a useful 
 institution from the influence of vague 
 and unfounded declamation against its 
 danger to the public liberties. Our lib- 
 erties, indeed, must stand upon veiy 
 frail foundations, if the government 
 cannot, without endangermg them, 
 a^ail itself of those common facilities, 
 in the collection of its revenues and the 
 management of its finances, which all 
 other governments, in commercial coun- 
 tries, find useful and necessary. 
 
 In order to justify its alarm for the 
 security of our independence, the mes- 
 sage supposes a case. It sujiposes that 
 the bank should pass principally into 
 the hands of the subjects of a foreign 
 country, and that we should be involved 
 in war with that countiy, and then it 
 exclaims, "What would be our condi- 
 tion?" Why, Sir, it is plain that all 
 the advantages would be on our side. 
 The bank would still be our institution, 
 subject to our own laws, and all its 
 directors elected by ourselves; and our 
 means would be enhanced, not by the 
 confiscation and plunder, but by the 
 proper use, of the foreign capital in our 
 hands. And, Sir, it is singular enougli 
 that this very state of war, from which 
 this argimient against a bank is drawn, 
 is the very thing which, more than all 
 others, convinced the country and tlie 
 government of the necessity of a na- 
 tional bank. So much was the want of 
 such an institution felt in the late war, 
 that the subject engaged the attention 
 of Congress, constantly, from the decla- 
 ration of that war down to the time 
 when the existing bank was actually 
 established; so that in this respect, aa 
 well as in others, the argument of the 
 message is directly opposed to the whole 
 experience of the government, and to 
 the general and long-settled convictions 
 of the country. 
 
 I now proceed. Sir, to a few remarks 
 upon the President's constitutional ob 
 jections to the bank; and I cannot for- 
 bear to say, in regard to them, that he 
 appears to me to have assumed very ex- 
 traordinary grounds of reasoning. He 
 denies that tlie constitutionality of the 
 bank is a settled question. If it be not, 
 will it ever become so, or what disputed 
 question ever can be settled? I have 
 already observed, that for thirty-six 
 years out of the forty-three during which 
 the government has been in being, a 
 bank has existed, such as is now pro- 
 posed to be continued. 
 
 As early as 1791, after great delibera- 
 tion, the first bank charter was pa.ssed 
 by Congress, and approved by PresidcTit 
 Washington. It established an institu- 
 tion, resembling, in all things now ob- 
 
328 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 
 
 jected to, the present bank. That bank, 
 like this, could take lands in payment of 
 its debts; that charter, like the present, 
 gave the States no power of taxation ; it 
 allowed for\>igners to hold stock; it re- 
 strained Congress from creating other 
 banks. It gave also exclusive privi- 
 leges, and in all particulars it was, ac- 
 cording to the doctrine of the message, 
 as objectionable as that now existing. 
 ITiat bank continued twenty years. In 
 ISIG, the present institution was estab- 
 lished, and has been ever since in full 
 operation. Now, Sir, the question of 
 the power of Congress to create such 
 institutions has been contested in ev^ery 
 manner known to our Constitution and 
 laws. The forms of the government 
 furnish no new mode in which to try 
 this question. It has been dLscussed 
 over and over again, in Congress; it has 
 been argued and solemnly adjudged in 
 the Supreme Court; every President, 
 except the present, has considered it a 
 settled question ; many of the State legis- 
 latures have instructed their Senators 
 to vote for the bank; the tribunals of 
 the States, in every instance, have sup- 
 ported its constitutionality; and, beyond 
 all doubt and dispute, the general pub- 
 lic opinion of the country has at all 
 times given, and does now give, its full 
 sanction and approbation to the exercise 
 of this power, as being a constitutional 
 power. There has been no opinion 
 questioning the power expressed or inti- 
 mated, at any time, by either house of 
 Congress, by any President, or by any 
 respectable judicial tribunal. Now, Sir, 
 if this practice of near forty years, if 
 these repeated exercises of the power, 
 if this solemn adjudication of the Su- 
 preme Court, witli the concurrence and 
 approbation of public opinion, do not 
 settle the question, how is any question 
 ever to be setth^d, about which any one 
 may choose to raise a doubt? 
 
 The argument of the message upon 
 the Congressional precedents is either a 
 bold and gross fallacy, or else it is an 
 assertion without proofs, and against 
 known facts. The message admits, 
 that, in 1701, Congress decided in favor 
 of a bank; but it adds, that another 
 
 Congress, in 1811, decided against it. 
 Now, if it be meant that, in 1811, Con- 
 gress decided against the bank on con- 
 stitutional ground, then the assertion 
 is wholly incorrect, and against noto- 
 rious fact. It is perfectly well known, 
 that many members, in both houses, 
 voted against the bank in 1811, who 
 had no doubt at all of the constitutional 
 power of Congress. They were entirely 
 governed by other reasons given at the 
 time. I appeal, Sir, to the honorable 
 member from Maryland, who was then a 
 member of the Senate, and voted against 
 the bank, whether he, and others who 
 were on the same side, did not give 
 those votes on other well-known grounds, 
 and not at aU on constitutional ground? 
 
 General Smith here rose, and said, that 
 he voted against the bank in 1811, but not 
 at all on constitutional grounds, and liad 
 no doubt such was the case with other 
 members. 
 
 We all know. Sir, the fact to be as 
 the gentleman from Marj-land has stat^ 
 ed it. Every man who recollects, or 
 who has read, the political occurrences 
 of that day, knows it. Therefore, if the 
 message intends to say, that in 1811 
 Congress denied the existence of any 
 such constitutional power, the declara- 
 tion is unwarranted, and altogether at 
 variance with the facts. If, on the 
 other hand, it only intends to say, that 
 Congress decided against the proposition 
 then before it on some other grounds, 
 then it alleges that which is nothing 
 at all to the purpose. The argument, 
 then, either assumes for truth that 
 which is not true, or else the whole 
 statement is immaterial and futile. 
 
 But whatever value others may attach 
 to this argument, the message thinks so 
 highly of it, that it proceeds to repeat it. 
 " One Congress," it says, " in 1815, de- 
 cided against a bank, another, in 1816, 
 decided in its favor. There is nothing 
 in precedent, iherefore, which, if its au- 
 thority were admitted, ought to weigh in 
 favor of the act before me." Now, Sir, 
 since it is known to the whole country, 
 one cannot but wonder how it should 
 remain iniknown to tlie President, that 
 
or THE UNITED STATES BANK RILL. 
 
 32S 
 
 Congress did not decide against a bank 
 in 1815. On the contrary, tliat very 
 Congress passed a bill for erecting a 
 bank, by very large majorities. In one 
 form, it is true, tlie bill failed in the 
 House of Representatives ; but the vote 
 was reconsidered, the bill recommitted, 
 and finally passed by a vote of one hun- 
 di-ed and twenty to thirty-nine. There 
 is, tlierefore, not only no solid gi'ound, 
 but not even any plausible pretence, for 
 the assertion, that Congress in 1815 de- 
 cided against the bank. That very Con- 
 gress passed a bill to create a bank, and 
 its decision, therefore, is precisely the 
 other way, and is a direct practical prece- 
 dent in favor of the constitutional power. 
 What are we to think of -a constitutional 
 argument which deals in this way with 
 historical facts? When the message de- 
 clares, as it does declare, that there is 
 nothing in precedent which ought to 
 •weigh in favor of the power, it sets at 
 naught repeated acts of Congress affirm- 
 ing the power, and it also states other 
 acts, which were in fact, and which ai'e 
 well known to have been, directly the 
 reverse of what the message represents 
 them. There is not. Sir, the slightest 
 reason to think that any Senate or any 
 House of Representatives, ever assem- 
 bled under the Constitution, contained 
 a majority that doubted the constitu- 
 tional existence of the power of Con- 
 gress to establish a bank. Whenever 
 the question has arisen, and has been 
 decided, it has always been decided one 
 •way. The legislative precedents all as- 
 sert and maintain the power ; and these 
 legislative precedents have been the law 
 of the land for almost forty years. They 
 settle the construction of the Constitu- 
 tion, and sanction the exercise of the 
 power in question, so far as these effects 
 can ever be produced by any legislative 
 precedents whatever. 
 
 But the President does not admit the 
 authority of precedent. Sir, I have al- 
 ways found, that those who habitually 
 deny most vehemently the general force 
 of precedent, and assert most strongly 
 the supremacy of private opinion, are 
 yet, of all men, most tenacious of that 
 very authority of precedent, w-henever it 
 
 happens to be in their favor. I beg leave 
 to ask. Sir, upon what ground, except that 
 of precedent, and precedent alone, the 
 President's friends have placed his power 
 of removal from office. No such power 
 is given by the Constitution, in terms, 
 nor anywhere intimated, throughout the 
 whole of it; no paragi-aph or clause of 
 that instrument recognizes such a power. 
 To say the least, it is as questionable, 
 and has been as often questioned, as the 
 power of Congress to create a bank; 
 and, enlightened by what has passed 
 under our own observation, we now see 
 that it is of all powers the most capable 
 of flagrant abuse. Now, Sir, I ask 
 again, What becomes of this power, if 
 the authority of precedent be taken 
 away? It has all along been denied to 
 exist; it is nowhere found in the Con- 
 stitution; and its recent exercise, or, to 
 call things by their right names, its re- 
 cent abuse, has, more than any other 
 single cause, rendered good men either 
 cool in then- affections toward the gov- 
 ernment of their countiy, or doubtful of 
 its long continuance. Yet there is prece- 
 dent in favor of this power, and the Pres- 
 ident exercises it. We know. Sir, that, 
 without the aid of that precedent, his 
 acts could never have received the sanc- 
 tion of this body, even at a time when 
 his voice was somewhat more potential 
 here than it now is, or, as I trust, ever 
 again will be. Does the President, then, 
 reject the authority of all precedent ex- 
 cept what it is suitable to his o\\m pur- 
 pose to use ? And does he use, without 
 stint or measure, all precedents which 
 may augment his own power, or gratify 
 his own wishes ? 
 
 But if the President thinks lightly of 
 the authority of Congress in construing 
 the Constitution, he thinks still more 
 lightly of the authority of the Supreme 
 Court. He asserts a right of individual 
 judgment on constitutional questions, 
 which is totally inconsistent with any 
 proper administration of the govern- 
 ment, or any regular execution of the 
 laws. Social disorder, entire uncertainty 
 in regard to individual rights and indi- 
 vidual duties, the cessation of legal au- 
 thority, confusion, the dissolution of 
 
330 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 
 
 free government, — all these are the in- 
 evitable consequences of the principles 
 adopted by the message, whenever they 
 shall be carried to their full extent. 
 Hitherto it has been thought that the 
 final decision of constitutional questions 
 belonged to the supreme judicial tribu- 
 nal The very nature of free govern- 
 ment, it has been supposed, enjoins this; 
 and our Constitution, moreover, has been 
 understood so to provide, clearly and ex- 
 pressly. It is true, that each branch of 
 the legislature has an undoubted right, 
 in the exercise of its functions, to con- 
 sider the constitutionality of a law pro- 
 posed to be passed. This is natui-ally a 
 part of its duty ; and neither branch can 
 be compelled to pass any law, or do any 
 other act, which it deems to be beyond 
 the reach of its constitutional power. 
 The President has the same right, when 
 a bill is presented for his approval ; for 
 he is, doubtless, bound to consider, in 
 all cases, whether such bill be compat- 
 ible with the Constitution, and whether 
 he can approve it consistently with his 
 oath of office. But when a law has been 
 passed by Congress, and approved by the 
 President, it is now no longer in the 
 power, either of the same President, or 
 his successors, to say whether the law is 
 constitutional or not. He is not at lib- 
 erty to disregard it; he is not at liberty 
 to feel or to affect " constitutional scru- 
 ples," and to sit in judgment himself on 
 the validity of a statute of the govern- 
 ment, and to nullify it, if he so chooses. 
 After a law has passed through all the 
 requisite forms; after it has received 
 the requisite legislative sanction and the 
 executive approval, the question of its 
 constitutionality then becomes a judicial 
 question, and a judicial question alone. 
 In tlie courts that question may be 
 raised, argued, and adjudged; it can be 
 adjudged nowhere else. 
 
 The President is as much bound by 
 the law as any private citizen, and can 
 no more contest its validity than any 
 private citizen. He may refuse to obey 
 the law, and so may a private citizen; 
 but bntli do it at their own peril, and 
 neither of them can settle the question 
 of its validity, 'i'lie President may say 
 
 a law is unconstitutional, but he is not 
 the judge. "\\'ho is to decide that ques- 
 tion? The judiciary alone possesses 
 this unquestionable and hitherto un- 
 questioned right. The judiciary is the 
 constitutional tribunal of appeal for the 
 citizens, against both Congress and the 
 executive, in regard to the consiitution- 
 ality of laws. It has this jurisdiction 
 expressly conferred upon it, and when 
 it has decided the question, its judgment 
 must, from the very natm-e of all judg- 
 ments that are final, and from which 
 there is no appeal, be conclusive. 
 Hitherto, this opinion, and a corre- 
 spondent practice, have prevailed, in 
 America, with all wise and considerate 
 men. If it were otherwise, there would 
 be no government of laws; but we 
 should all live under the government, 
 the rule, the caprices, of individuals. 
 If we depart from the observance of 
 these salutary principles, the executive 
 power becomes at once purely despotic; 
 for the President, if the principle and 
 the reasoning of the message be sound, 
 may either execute or not execute the 
 laws of the land, according to his sover- 
 eign pleasure. He may refuse to put 
 into execution one law, pi'onounced 
 valid by all branches of the government, 
 and yet execute another, which may 
 have been by constitutional authority 
 pronounced void. 
 
 On the argument of the message, the 
 President of the United States holds, 
 under a new pretence and a new name, 
 a dispensing power over the laws as abso- 
 lute as was claimed by James the Second 
 of England, a month before he wa<» com- 
 pelled to fly the kingdom. That which 
 is now claimed by the President is in 
 truth nothing less, and nothing else, 
 than' the old dispensing power asserted 
 by the kings of England in the worst of 
 times; the very climax, indeed, of all 
 the preposterous pretensions of the Tu- 
 dor and the Stuart races. According 
 to the doctrines put forth by the Presi- 
 dent, although Congress may have 
 passed a law, and although the Supreme 
 Court may have pronounced it constitu- 
 tional, yet it is, nevorthele.ss, no law at 
 all, if lie, in his good pleasure, sees fit 
 
OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 
 
 331 
 
 to deny it effect ; in other words, to re- 
 peal and annul it. Sir, no President 
 and no public man ever before advanced 
 sucli ductriurs in the face of the nation. 
 There never before was a moment in 
 which any President would have been 
 tolerated in asserting such a claim to 
 despotic power. After Congress has 
 ])assed the law, and after tlie Supreme 
 Court has pronounced its judgment on 
 the very point in controversy, the Presi- 
 dent has set up his own private judg- 
 ment against its constitutional interpre- 
 tation. It is to be remembered, Sir, 
 that it is the present law, it is the act of 
 1810, it is the present cliarter of the 
 bank, which the President pronounces 
 to be unconstitutional. It is no bank 
 to he created, it is no law proposed to be 
 passed, which he denounces; it is the 
 law now existing, passed by Congress, 
 approved by President INIadison, and 
 sanctioned by a solemn judgment of the 
 Supreme Court, which lie now declares 
 unconstitutional, and which, of course, 
 so far as it may depend on him, cannot 
 be executed. If these opinions of the 
 President be maintained, there is an 
 end of all law and all judicial authority. 
 Statutes are but recommendations, judg- 
 ments no more than opinions. Both 
 are equally destitute of binding force. 
 Such a univei-sal power as is now claimed 
 for him, a power of judging over the 
 laws and over the decisions of the judi- 
 ciary, is nothing else but pure despotism. 
 If conceded to him, it makes him at 
 once what Louis the Fouiteenth pro- 
 claimed himself to be when he said, " I 
 am the State." 
 
 The Supreme Court has unanimously 
 declared and adjudged that the existing 
 bank is cieated by a constitutional law 
 of Congi-ess. As has been before ob- 
 served, this bank, so far as the present 
 question is concerned, is like that which 
 was established in 1791 by Washington, 
 and sanctioned by the great men of that 
 day. In every form, therefore, in which 
 the que.stion can be raised, it has been 
 raised and has been settled. Every pro- 
 cess and every mode of trial known to 
 the Constitution and laws have been ex- 
 hausted, and always and without excep- 
 
 tion the decision has been in favor of the 
 validity of the law. But all this practice, 
 all this precedent, all this public approba- 
 tion, all this solemn adjudication directly 
 on the point, is to be disregarded and re- 
 jected, and the con.stitutional power flatly 
 denied. And, Sir, if we are startled at 
 this conclusion, our surprise will not bo 
 lessened when we examine the argument 
 by which it is maintained. 
 
 By the Constitution, Congress is au- 
 thorized to pass all laws " necessary and 
 proper " for carrying its own legislative 
 powers into effect. Congress has deemed 
 a bank to be " necessary and proper " for 
 these purposes, and it has therefore es- 
 tablished a bank. But although the 
 law has been passed, and the bank e.s- 
 tablished, and the constitutional validity 
 of its charter solemnly adjudged, yet tiie 
 President pronounces it unconstitutional, 
 because some of the powers bestowed on 
 the bank are, in his opinion, not neces- 
 sary or proper. It would appear that 
 powers which in 1791 and in 181 (i, in 
 the time ot Washington and in the time 
 of ]Madison, were deemed "necessary 
 and proper," are no longer to be so re- 
 garded, and therefore the bank is un- 
 constitutional. It has really come to 
 this, that the constitutionality of a bank 
 is to depend upon the opinion which 
 one particular man may form of the 
 utility or necessity of some of the clauses 
 in its charter 1 If that individual 
 chooses to think that a particular power 
 contained in the charter is not necessary 
 to the proper constitution of the bank, 
 then the act is unconstitutional I 
 
 Hitherto it has always been supposed 
 that the question was of a very different 
 nature. It has been thought that the 
 policy of granting a particular charter 
 may be materially dependent on the 
 structure and organization and powers 
 of the proposed institution. But its 
 general constitutionality has never be- 
 fore been understood to turn on such 
 points. This would be making its con- 
 stitutionality depend on subordinate 
 questions; on questions of expediency 
 and questions of detail; upon that 
 which one man may think necessary, 
 and another may not. If the coustitu- 
 
332 
 
 THE PRESIDENTLU. VETO 
 
 tional question were made to hinge on 
 matters of this kind, how could it ever 
 be decided? All would depend on con- 
 jecture; on the complexional feeling, on 
 the prejudices, on the passions, of indi- 
 viduals; on more or less practical skill 
 or correirt judgment in regard to bank- 
 ing operations among tliose who should 
 be the judges ; on the impulse of mo- 
 monta'y interests, party objects, or per- 
 sonal purposes. Put the question in 
 this manner to a court of seven judges, 
 to decide whether a particular bank was 
 constitutional, and it might be doubtful 
 whether they could come to any result, 
 as thej' might well hold very various 
 opinions on the practical utility of many 
 clauses of the charter. 
 
 The question in that case would be, 
 not whether the bank, in its general 
 frame, cliaracter, and objects, was a 
 proper instrument to carry into effect 
 the powers of the government, but 
 whether the particular powers, direct or 
 incidental, conferred on a particular 
 bank, were better calculated than all 
 others to give success to its operations. 
 For if not, then the charter, according 
 to this sort of reasoning, would be un- 
 warranted by the Constitution. This 
 mode of construing the Constitution is 
 certainly a novel discovery. Its merits 
 belong entirely to the President and his 
 advisers. According to this rule of in- 
 terpretation, if the President should be 
 of opinion, that the capital of the bank 
 was larger, by a thousand dollars, than 
 it ought to be; or that the time for the 
 continuance of the charter was a year 
 too long ; or that it was unnecessary to 
 require it, under penalty, to pay specie; 
 or ueetUess to provide for punishing, as 
 forgery, the counterfeiting of its bills, — 
 either of these reasons would be suffi- 
 cient to render the charter, in his oinn- 
 ion, unconstitutional, invalid, and nuga- 
 tory. This is a legitimate conclusion 
 from the argument. Such a view of the 
 subject has certainly never before been 
 taken. This train of reasoning has hith- 
 erto not been heard within the halls 
 of Congress, nor has any one ventured 
 upon it before the tribunals of justice. 
 The first exhibition, its first appearance, 
 
 as an argument, is in a m»j8sage of the 
 President of the United States. 
 
 According to that mode of constru- 
 ing the Constitution which was adopted 
 by Congress in 1791, and approved by 
 Washington, and which has been sanc- 
 tioned by the judgment of the Supreme 
 Court, and affirmed by the practice of 
 nearly forty years, the question upou 
 the constitutionality of the bank in- 
 volves two inquiries. First, whether a 
 bank, in its general character, and with 
 regard to the general objects with which 
 banks are usually connected, be, in it- 
 self, a fit means, a suitable instrument, 
 to carry into effect the powers granted 
 to the government. If it be so, then 
 the second, and the only other question 
 is, whether the powers given in a par- 
 ticular charter are appropriate for a 
 bank. If they are powers which are 
 appropriate for a bank, powers which 
 Congress may fairly consider to be use- 
 ful to the bank or the countrj-, then 
 Congress may confer these powers; be- 
 cause the discretion to be exercised in 
 framing the constitution of the bank 
 belongs to Congress. One man may 
 think the granted powers not indispen- 
 sable to the particular bank; another 
 may suppose them injudicious, or inju- 
 rious; a third may imagine that other 
 powers, if granted in their stead, would 
 be more beneficial; but all these are 
 matters of expediency, about which 
 men may differ; and the power of de- 
 ciding upon them belongs to Congress. 
 
 I again repeat. Sir, that if, for reasons 
 of this kind, the President sees fit to 
 negative a bill, on tlie ground of its 
 being inexpedient or impolitic, he has 
 a right to do so. But remember, Sir, 
 that we are now on the constitutional 
 question ; remember that the argument 
 of the President is, that, because powers 
 were given to the bank by the charter 
 of 1816 which he thinks unnecessary, 
 that charter is unconstitutional. Now, 
 Sir, it will hardly be denied, or rather 
 it was not denied or doubted before this 
 message came to us, that, if there was 
 to be a bank, the powers and duties of 
 that bank nuist be prescribed in the law 
 creating it. Xobody but Congress, it 
 
OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 
 
 333 
 
 has been thought, could grant these 
 powers and privileges, or presci'ibe their 
 limitations. It is true, indeed, that the 
 message pretty plainly intimates, that 
 the President should have been Jirst 
 consulted, and that he should have had 
 the framing of tlie bill; but we are not 
 yet accustomed to that order of things 
 in enacting laws, nor do I know a par- 
 allel to this claim, thus now brought 
 forward, except that, in some peculiar 
 cases in England, highly affecting the 
 royal prerogative, the assent of the mon- 
 arch is necessary before either the House 
 of Peers, or his Majesty's faithful Com- 
 mons, are permitted to act upon the 
 subject, or to entertain its consideration. 
 But supposing. Sir, that our accustomed 
 forms and our republican principles are 
 still to be followed, and that a law cre- 
 ating a bank is, like all other laws, to 
 originate with Congress, and that the 
 President has nothing to do with it till 
 it is presented for his approval, then it 
 is clear that the powers and duties of a 
 proposed bank, and all the terms and 
 conditions annexed to it, must, in the 
 first place, be settled by Congress. 
 
 This power, if constitutional at all, 
 is only constitutional in the hands of 
 Congi'ess. Anywhere else, its exercise 
 would be plain usurpation. If, then, 
 the authority to decide what powers 
 ought to be granted to a bank belong to 
 Congress, and Congress shall have exer- 
 cised that power, it would seem little 
 better than absurd to -say, that its act, 
 nevertheless would be unconstitutional 
 and invalid, if, in the opinion of a 
 third party, it had misjudged, on a 
 question of expediency, in the arrange- 
 ment of details. According to such a 
 mode of reasoning, a mistake in the 
 exercise of jurisdiction takes away the 
 jurisdictiou. If Congress decide right, 
 its decision may stand; if it decide 
 wrong, its decision is nugatory; and 
 whether its decision be right or wrong, 
 another is to judge, although the original 
 power of making the decision must be 
 allowed to be exclusively in Congress. 
 This is the end to which the argument 
 of the message will conduct its fol- 
 lowers. 
 
 Sir, in considering the authority of 
 Congress to invest the bank with the 
 particular powers granted to it, the in- 
 quiry is not, and caimot be, how appro- 
 priate these powers are, but whethei 
 they be at all appropriate ; whether they 
 come within the range of a just and 
 honest discretion ; whether Congre.s3 
 may fairly esteem thein to be necessary 
 The question is not. Are they the fittest 
 means, the best means? or whether the 
 bank might not be established without 
 them; but the question is. Are they 
 such as Congress, bona Jide, may have 
 regarded as appropriate to the end? If 
 any other riile were to be adopited, noth- 
 ing could ever be settled. A law would 
 be constitutional to-day and unconstitu- 
 tional to-morrow. Its constitutionality 
 would altogether depend upon individual 
 opinion on a matter of mere expediency. 
 Indeed, such a case as that is now actu- 
 ally before us. Mr. ]\Iadison deemed 
 the powers given to the bank, in its 
 present charter, proper and necessary. 
 He held the bank, therefore, to be con- 
 stitutional. But the present President, 
 not acknowledging that the power of 
 deciding on these points rests with Con- 
 gress, nor with Congress and the then 
 President, but setting up his own opin- 
 ion as the standard, declares the law 
 now in being unconstitutional, because 
 the powers granted by it are, in his esti- 
 mation, not necessary and proper. I 
 pray to be informed, Sir, whether, upon 
 similar grounds of reasoning, the Presi- 
 dent's own scheme for a bank, if Con- 
 gress should do so unlikely a thing as to 
 adopt it, would not become unconstitu- 
 tional also, if it should so happen that 
 his successor should hold his bank in as 
 light esteem as he holds those established 
 under the auspices of Washington an J 
 Madison ? 
 
 If the reasoning of the message be 
 well founded, it is clear that the charter 
 of the existing bank is not a law. The 
 bank has no legal existence; it is not 
 responsible to government; it has no 
 authority to act; it is incapable of be- 
 ing an agent; the President may treat 
 it as a nullity to-morrow, withdraw from 
 it all the public deposits, and set afloat 
 
334 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 
 
 all the existing- national arrangements 
 of revenue and finance. It is enough to 
 state these monstrous consequences, to 
 show that the doctrine, principles, and 
 pretensions of the message are entirely 
 inconsistent with a government of laws. 
 If that which Congress has enacted, and 
 the Supreme Court has sanctioned, be 
 not the law of the land, then the reign 
 of law has ceased, and the reign of 
 individual opinion has already begun. 
 
 The President, in his commentary on 
 the details of the existing bank charter, 
 undertakes to prove that one provision, 
 and another provision, is not necessary 
 and proper; because, as he thinks, the 
 same objects proposed to be accom- 
 plished by them might have been better 
 attained in another mode; and there- 
 fore such provisions are not necessary, 
 and so not warranted by the Consti- 
 tution. Does not this show, that, ac- 
 cording to his own mode of reasoning, 
 his own scheme would not be constitu- 
 tional, since another scheme, which 
 probably most people would think a 
 better one, might be substituted for it? 
 Perhaps, in any bank charter, there may 
 be no provisions which may be justlj^ 
 regarded as absolutely indispensable; 
 since it is probable that for any of them 
 some others might be substituted. No 
 bank, therefore, ever could be estab- 
 lished; because there never has been, 
 and never could be, any charter, of 
 which every provision should appear 
 to be indispensable, or necessary and 
 proper, in the judgment of every indi- 
 vidual. To admit, therefore, that there 
 may be a constitutional bank, and yet 
 to contend for such a mode of judging 
 of its provisions and details as the 
 message adopts, involves an absurdity. 
 Any charter which may be framed may 
 be taken up, and each power conferred 
 by it successively denied, on the ground, 
 that, in regard to each, either no such 
 power is "necessary or proper" in a 
 bank, or, which is the same thing in 
 effect, some other power might be sub- 
 stituted for it, and supply its place. 
 That can never be necessary, in the 
 sense in wliich the message understands 
 that term, which may be dispensed with ; 
 
 and it cannot be said that any power 
 may not be dispensed with, if there be 
 some other which might be substituted 
 for it, and which would accomplish the 
 same end. Therefore, no bank could 
 ever be constitutional, because none 
 could be established which should not 
 contain some provisions which might 
 have been omitted, and their place sup- 
 plied by others. 
 
 Mr. President, I have understood the 
 true and well-established doctrine to be, 
 that, after it has been decided that it is 
 competent for Congress to establish a 
 bank, then it follows that it may create 
 such a bank as it judges, in its discre- 
 tion, to be best, and invest it with all 
 such power as it may deem fit and suita- 
 ble; with this limitation, always, that 
 all is to be done in the bona Jide execu- 
 tion of the power to create a bank. If 
 the granted powers are appropriate to 
 the professed end, so that the granting 
 of them cannot be regarded as usurpa- 
 tion of authority by Congress, or an 
 evasion of constitutional restrictions, 
 under color of establishing a bank, then 
 the charter is constitutional, whether 
 these powers be thought indispensable 
 by others or not, or whether even Con- 
 gress itself deemed them absolutely in- 
 dispensable, or only thought them fit 
 and suitable, or whether they are more 
 or less appropriate to their end. It is 
 enough that they are appropriate ; it is 
 enough that they are suited to produce 
 the effects designed ; and no comparison 
 is to be instituted, in order to try their 
 constitutionality, between them and 
 others whicli may be suggested. A case 
 analogous to the present is found in tlie 
 constitutional power of Congress over 
 the mail. The Constitution says no 
 more than that "Congress shall have 
 power to establish post-offices and post- 
 roads "; and, in the general clause, "all 
 powers necessary and proper" to give 
 effect to this. In the execution of this 
 power. Congress has protected the mail, 
 by providing that robbery of it shall be 
 punished with death. Is this infliction 
 of capital punishment constitutional? 
 Certainly it is not, unless it be both 
 ' ' proper and necessary. ' ' The President 
 
OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 
 
 S35 
 
 may not think it necessary or proper; 
 tht,r l.iw, then, according to the system 
 of reasouiiif,' enforced by tlie message, 
 is of no binding force, and the President 
 may disobey it, and refuse to see it exe- 
 cuted. 
 
 The trjth is, Mr. President, that if 
 the general object, the subject-matter, 
 properly belong to Congress, all its in- 
 cidents belong to Congress also. If 
 Congress is to establish post-offices and 
 post-roads, it may, for that end, adopt 
 one set of regulations or another; and 
 either would be constitutional. So the 
 details of one bank are as constitu- 
 tional as those of another, if they are 
 confined fairly and honestly to the pur- 
 pose of organizing the institution, and 
 rendering it useful. One bank is as con- 
 stitutional as another bank. If Congress 
 possesses the power to make a bank, it 
 possesses tlie power to make it efficient, 
 and competent to produce the good ex- 
 pected from it. It may clothe it with 
 all such power and privileges, not other- 
 wise iuconsistent with the Constitution, 
 as may be necessary, in its own judg- 
 ment, to make it what government 
 deems it should be. It may confer on 
 it such immunities as may induce indi- 
 viduals to become stockholders, and to 
 furnish the capital; and since the ex- 
 tent of tnese immunities and privileges 
 is n.atter of discretion, and matter of 
 opinion, Congress only can decide it, 
 because Congress alone can frame or 
 grant the charter. A charter, thus 
 granted to individuals, becomes a con- 
 tract with them, upon their compliance 
 with its terms. The bank becomes an 
 agent, bound to perform certain duties, 
 and entitled to certain stipulated rights 
 and privileges, in compensation for the 
 proper discharge of these duties; and 
 aU these stipulations, so long as they 
 are appropriate to the object professed, 
 and not repugnant to any other consti- 
 tutional injimction, are entirely within 
 tlie competency of Congress. And yet, 
 Sir. the message of the President toils 
 through all the commonplace topics of 
 monopoly, the right of taxation, the 
 suffering of the poor, and the arrogance 
 of the rich, with as much painful effort, 
 
 as if one, or another, or all of Ihem, 
 had something to do with the constitu- 
 tional question. 
 
 "What is called the "monopoly" is 
 made the subject of repeated rehearsal, 
 in terms of special complaint. By this 
 " monopoly," I suppose, is understood 
 the restriction contained in the charter, 
 that Congress shall not, during the 
 twenty yeai's, create another bank. 
 Now, Sir, let me ask, Who would think 
 of creating a bank, inviting stockhold- 
 ers into it, with large investments, im- 
 posing upon it heavy duties, as con- 
 nected with the government, receiving 
 some millions of dollars as a bonus or 
 premium, and yet retaining the power 
 of granting, the next day, another char- 
 ter, which would destroy the whole value 
 of the first? If this be an unconstitu- 
 tional restraint on Congress, the Consti- 
 tution must be strangely at variance 
 v,-ith the dictates both of good sense and 
 sound morals. Did not the first Bank 
 of the United States contain a similar 
 restriction? And have not the States 
 granted bank charters with a condition, 
 tliat, if the charter should be accepted, 
 they would not grant others? States 
 have certainly done so; and, in some 
 instances, where no bonus or premium 
 was paid at all ; but from the mere de- 
 sire to give effect to the charter, by in- 
 ducing individuals to accept it and or- 
 ganize the institution. The President 
 declares that this restriction is not neces- 
 sary to the efficiency of the bank; but 
 that is the very thing which Congress 
 and his predecessor in office were called 
 on to decide, and which they did decide, 
 when the one passed and the other ap- 
 proved the act. And he has now nc 
 more authority to pronounce his judg- 
 ment on that act than any otner indi- 
 vidual in society. It is not his province 
 to decide on the constitutionality of stat- 
 utes which Congress has passed, and hia 
 predecessors approved. 
 
 There is another sentiment in this 
 part of the message, which we should 
 hardly have expected to find in a paper 
 which is supposed, whoever may have 
 drawn it up, to have passed under the 
 review of professional characters. The 
 
330 
 
 THE PRESIDENTL\L VETO 
 
 message declares, that this limitation to 
 create no other bank is unconstitutional, 
 because, although Congress may use the 
 discretion vest«id in them, "they may 
 not limit the discretion of their suc- 
 cessors." This reason is almost too 
 superficial to require an answer. Every 
 one at all accustomed to the considera- 
 tion of such subjects knows that every 
 Congress can bind its successors to the 
 same extent that it can bind itself. The 
 power of Congress is always the same ; 
 the aathority of law always the same. 
 It is true, we speak of the Twentieth 
 Congress and the Twent>--first Congress ; 
 but this is only to denote the period of 
 time, or to mark the successive organ- 
 izations of the House of Representa- 
 tives under the successive periodical 
 election of its members. As a politic 
 body, as the legislative power of the 
 government, Congress is always con- 
 tinuous, always identical. A particular 
 Congress, as we speak of it, for in- 
 stance, the present Congress, can no 
 farther restrain itself from doing what 
 it may choose to do at the next session, 
 than it can restrain any succeeding Con- 
 gress from doing what it may choose. 
 Any Congi-ess may repeal the act or law 
 of its predecessor, if in its nature it be 
 repealable, just as it may repeal its own 
 act ; and if a law or an act be irrepeal- 
 able in its nature, it can no more be re- 
 pealed by a subsequent Congress than 
 by that which passed it. All this is 
 familiar to everybody. And Congress, 
 like every other legislature, often passes 
 acts which, being in the nature of gi-ants 
 or contracts, are irrepealable ever after- 
 wards. The message, in a strain of ar- 
 gument which it is difficult to treat with 
 ordinary respect, declares that this re- 
 striction on the power of Congress, as 
 to the establishment of other banks, is 
 a palpable attempt to amend the Con- 
 stitution by an act of legislation. The 
 reason on which this observation pur- 
 ports to be founded is, that Congi-ess, 
 by the Constitution, is to have exclusive 
 legislation over the District of Colum- 
 bia; and when the bank charter de- 
 clares that Congress will create no new- 
 bank within the District, it annuls this 
 
 power of exclusive legislation ! I must 
 say, that this reasoning hardly rises high 
 enough to entitle it to a passing notice. 
 It would be doing it too much credit to 
 call it plausible. Xo one needs to be 
 informed that exclusive power of legis- 
 lation is not unlimited power of legisla- 
 tion; and if it were, how can that legis- 
 lative power be unlimited that cannot 
 restrain itself, that cannot bind itself by 
 contract? Whether as a government or 
 as an individual, that being is fettered 
 and restrained which is not capable of 
 binding itself by ordinary obligation. 
 Every legislature binds itself, whenever 
 it makes a grant, enters into a contract, 
 bestows an office, or does any other act 
 or thing which is in its nature irrepeal- 
 able. And this, instead of detracting 
 from its legislative power, is one of the 
 modes of exercising that power. The 
 legislative power of Congress over the 
 District of Columbia would not be full 
 and complete, if it might not make just 
 such a stipulation as the bank charter 
 contains. 
 
 As to the taxing power of the States, 
 about which the message says so much, 
 the proper answer to all it says is, that 
 the States possess no power to tax any 
 instrument of the government of the 
 United States. It was no part of their 
 power before the Constitution, and they 
 derive no such power from any of its 
 provisions. It is nowhere given to them. 
 Could a State tax the coin of the United 
 States at the mint? Could a State lay a 
 stamp tax on the process of the courts of 
 the United States, and on custom-house 
 papers? Could it tax the transporta- 
 tion of the mail, or the ships of war, or 
 the ordnance, or the muniments of war, 
 of the United States? The reason that 
 these cannot be taxed by a State is, that 
 they are means and instruments of tlie 
 government of the United States. Tlie 
 establishment of a bank exempt from 
 State taxation takes away no existing 
 ricrht in a State. It leaves it all it ever 
 possessed. But the complaint is, that 
 the bank charter does not confer the 
 power of taxation. This, certainly, 
 tliough not a new, (for the same argu- 
 ment was urged here,) appears to me 
 
OF THE UNHED STATES BANK BILL. 
 
 837 
 
 to be a strange, mode of asserting and 
 maintaining State rights. I'he power 
 of taxation is a sovereign power; and 
 the President and those who think with 
 him are of opinion, in a given case, 
 that this sovereign power should be 
 conferred on the States by an act of 
 Congi-ess. There is, if I mistake not. 
 Sir, as little compliment to State sov- 
 ereignty in this idea, as there is of 
 Bouiid constitutional doctrine. Sover- 
 eign rights held under the grant of an 
 act of Congress present a proposition 
 quite new in constitutional law. 
 
 The President himself even admits 
 that an instrument of the government of 
 the United States ought not, as such, to 
 be taxed by the States ; yet he contends 
 for such a power of taxing projierty con- 
 nected with this instrument, and essen- 
 tial to its veiy being, as places its whole 
 existence in the pleasure of the States. 
 It is not enough that the States may 
 tax all the property of all their o^vn 
 citizens, wherever invested or however 
 employed. The complaint is, that the 
 power of State taxation does not reach 
 so far as to take cognizance over persons 
 out of the State, and to tax them for a 
 franchise lawfully exercised under the 
 authority of the United States. Sir, 
 when did the power of the States, or 
 indeed of any government, go to such 
 an extent as that? Clearly never. The 
 taxing power of all communities is 
 necessarily and justly limited to the 
 property of its own citizens, and to the 
 property of others, having a distinct 
 local existence as property, within its 
 jurisdiction; it does not extend to rights 
 and franchises, rightly exercised, under 
 the authority of other governments, nor 
 to persons beyond its jurisdiction. As 
 the Constitution has left the taxing 
 power of the States, so the bank char- 
 ter leaves it. Congress has not under- 
 taken either to take away, or to confer, 
 a taxing power; nor to enlarge, or to 
 restrain it; if it were to do either, I 
 hardly know which of the two would 
 be the least excusable. 
 
 I beg loave to repeat, Mr. President, 
 ihat what I have now been considering 
 »ie the Pre.sident's objections, not to 
 
 00 
 
 the policy or expediency, but to the 
 constitutionality, of the bank; and not 
 to the constitutionality of any new or 
 proposed bank, but of the bank as it 
 now is, and as it has long existed. If 
 the President had declined to approve 
 this bill because he thought the original 
 charter unwisely granted, and the liank, 
 in point of policy and expediency, ob- 
 jectionable or mischievous, and in that 
 view only had suggested the reasons 
 now urged by him, his argument, how- 
 ever inconclusive, would have been in- 
 telligible, and not, in its whole frame 
 and sco})e, inconsistent with all well- 
 establislied first principles. His rejec- 
 tion of the bill, in that case, would have 
 been, no doubt, an extraordinary exer- 
 cise of power; but it would have been, 
 nevertheless, the exercise of a power 
 belonging to his office, and trusted by 
 the Constitution to his discretion. But 
 when he puts forth an array of argu- 
 ments such as the message employs, not 
 against the expediency of the bank, but 
 against its constitutional existence, he 
 confounds all distinctions, mixes ques- 
 tions of policy and questions of right 
 together, and turns all constitutional 
 restraints into mere matters of opinion. 
 As far as its power extends, either in 
 its direct effects or as a precedent, the 
 message not only unsettles every thing 
 which has been settled under the Con- 
 stitution, but would show, also, that the 
 Constitution itself is utterly incapable 
 of any fixed construction or definite in- 
 terpretation, and that there is no possi- 
 bility of establishing, by its authority, 
 any practical limitations on tlie powers 
 of the respective branches of the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 When the message denies, as it does, 
 the authority of the Supreme Court to 
 decide on constitutional questions, it 
 effects, so far as the opinion of the 
 President and his authority can effect 
 it, a complete change in our govern- 
 ment. It does two things: first, it con- 
 verts constitutional limitations of power 
 into mere matters of opinion, and then 
 it strikes the judicial department, as an 
 efficient department, out of our .syst'-ra. 
 But the message by no means stops even 
 
838 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL \T:T0. 
 
 at this point. Having denied to Con- 
 gress the authority of judging what 
 powers may be constitutionally con- 
 ferred on a bank, and having erected 
 the judgment of the President himself 
 into a standard by which to try the con- 
 stitutional character of such powers, and 
 having denounced the authority of the 
 Supreme Court to decide finally on con- 
 stitutional questions, the message pro- 
 ceeds to claim for the President, not 
 the power of approval, but the primary 
 power, the power of originating laws. 
 The President informs Congress, that 
 he would have sent them such a charter, 
 if it had been properly asked for, as 
 they ought to confer. He very plainly 
 intimates, that, in his opinion, the es- 
 tablishment of all laws, of this nature 
 at least, belongs to the functions of the 
 executive government; and tl'.at Con- 
 gress ought to have waited for the mani- 
 festation of the executive will, before it 
 presumed to touch the subject. Such, 
 Mr. President, stripped of their dis- 
 guises, are the real pretences set up in 
 behalf of the executive power in this 
 most extraordinary paper. 
 
 Mr. President, we have arrived at a 
 new epoch. We are entering on ex- 
 perimtnits, with the government and the 
 Constitution of tlie country, hitherto 
 untried, and of fearful and appalling 
 aspect. This message calls us to the 
 contemplation of a future which little 
 resembles the past. Its principles are 
 at war with all that public opinion has 
 sustained, and all which the experience 
 of the government has sanctioned. It 
 denies first principles ; it contradicts 
 truths, heretofore received as indisputa- 
 ble. It denies to the judiciary tlie in- 
 teipretation of law, and claims to divide 
 with Congress the power of originating 
 statutes. It extends the grasp of execu- 
 tive pretension over every power of the 
 government. But this is not all. It 
 presents tlie chief magistrate of the 
 Union in the attitude of arguing away 
 
 the powers of that government over 
 which he has been chosen to preside; 
 and adopting for this purpose modes of 
 rea,soning which, even under the influ- 
 ence of all proper feeling towards high 
 official station, it is difficult to regard aa 
 respectable. It appeals to every preju- 
 dice which may betray men into a mis- 
 taken view of their own interests, and 
 to every passion which may lead them 
 to disobey the impulses of their under- 
 standing. It urges aU the speciouj 
 topics of State rights and national en- 
 croachment against that which a great 
 majority of the States have affirmed to 
 be rightful, and in which all of them 
 have acquiesced. It sows, in an un- 
 sparing manner, the seeds of jealousy 
 and ill-will against that government of 
 which its author is the official head. It 
 raises a cry, that liberty is in danger, at 
 the very moment when it puts forth 
 claims to powers heretofore unknown 
 and unheard of. It affects alarm for 
 the public freedom, when nothing en- 
 dangers that freedom so much as its 
 own unparalleled pretences. This, even, 
 is not all. It manifestly seeks to in- 
 flame the poor against the rich ; it wan- 
 tonly attacks whole classes of the peo- 
 ple, for the purpose of turning against 
 them the prejudices and the resent- 
 ments of other classes. It is a state 
 paper which finds no topic too exciting 
 for its use, no passion too inflammable 
 for its address and its solicitation. 
 
 Such is this message. It remains 
 now for the people of the United States 
 to choose between the principles here 
 avowed and their government. These 
 cannot subsist together. The one or 
 the other must be rejected. If the sen- 
 timents of the message shall receive 
 general approbation, the Constitution 
 will have perished even earlier than the 
 moment which its enemies originally 
 allowed for the termination of its exist- 
 once. It will not have survived to ita 
 fiftieth year. 
 
THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 A 8PKECH DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC DINNER IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, 
 ON ItlE 22d OE FEBRUARY, 1832, THE CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY OF 
 WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY. 
 
 [Ox tlic 32(1 of February, 1832, being the 
 centennial birthday of Gkorge Washing- 
 ton, a number of gentlcMnen, members of 
 Congress and others, from different parts 
 of tlie Union, united in conmiemorating 
 the occasion by a public dinner in the city 
 of Washington. 
 
 At tlie request of the Commitfee of Ar- 
 rangements, Mr. Webster, then a Senator 
 from Massachusetts, occupied the cliair. 
 After the cloth was removed, he addressed 
 the company in the following manner.] 
 
 I RISE, Gentlemen, to propose to you 
 the name of that c^^-eat man, in com- 
 memoration of -whose birth, and in 
 honor of whose character and services, 
 we are here assembled. 
 
 I am sure that I express a sentiment 
 common to every one present, when I 
 say that there is something more than 
 ordinarily solemn and affecting in tliis 
 occasion. 
 
 We are met to testify our regard for 
 him whose name is intimately blended 
 with whatever belongs most essentially 
 to the prosperity, the liberty, the free 
 institutions, and the renown of our 
 country. That name was of power to 
 rally a nation, in the hour of thick- 
 thronging public disasters and calam- 
 ities; that name shone, amid the storm 
 of war, a beacon light, to cheer and 
 guide the country's friends ; it flamed, 
 too, like a meteor, to repel her foes. 
 That name, in the days of peace, was a 
 loadstone, attracting to itself a whole 
 people's confidence, a whole people's 
 love, and the whole world's respect. 
 That name, descending with all time, 
 
 spreading over the whole earth, ana 
 uttered in all the languages belonging 
 to the tribes and races of men, will for 
 ever be pronounced with affectionate 
 gratitude by every one in whose breast 
 there shall arise an aspiration for hu- 
 man rights and human liberty. 
 
 "We perform this grateful duty, Gen- 
 tlemen, at the expiration of a himdred 
 years from his birth, near the place, so 
 cherished and beloved by him, where 
 his dust now reposes, and in the capital 
 which bears his own immortal name. 
 
 All experience evinces that human 
 sentiments are strongly influenced by 
 associations. The recurrence of anni- 
 versaries, or of longer periods of time, 
 naturally freshens the recollection, and 
 deepens the impression, of events with 
 which they are historically connected. 
 Renowned places, also, have a power to 
 awaken feeling, which all acknowledge. 
 Xo American can pass by the fields of 
 Bunker Hill, ^Monmouth, and Camden, 
 as if they were ordinary spots on the 
 earth's surface. AVhoever visits them 
 feels the sentiment of love of country 
 kindling anew, as if the spirit that be- 
 longed to the transactions which have 
 rendered these places distinguished still 
 hovered round, with power to move and 
 excite all who in future time may ap- 
 proach them. 
 
 But neither of these sources of emo- 
 tion equals the power with which great 
 moral examples affect the mind. AVheu 
 sublime virtues cease to be abstractions, 
 when they become ambodied in human 
 
340 
 
 THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 character, and exemplified in h\iman 
 conduct, we should be false to our own 
 nature, if we did not indulge in the 
 spontaneous effusions of our gratitude 
 and our admiration. A true lover of 
 the virtue of patriotism delights to con- 
 template its purest modeLs; and that 
 love of country may be well suspected 
 which affects to soar so high into the 
 legions of sentiment as to be lost and 
 absorbed in ihe abstract feeling, and 
 becomes too elevated or too relined to 
 glow with fervor in the commendation 
 or the love of individual benefactors. 
 All this is unnatural. It is as if one 
 should be so enthusiastic a lover of 
 poetry, as to care nothing for Homer or 
 Milton ; so passionately attached to elo- 
 quence as to be indifferent to TuUy and 
 Chatham; or such a devotee to the arts, 
 m such an ecstasy with the elements of 
 beauty, proportion, and expression, as 
 to regard the masterpieces of Raphael 
 and ^lichael Angelo with coldness or 
 contempt. We may be assured, Gentle- 
 men, that he w^ho really loves the thing 
 itself, loves its finest exhibitions. A 
 true friend of his country loves her 
 friends and benefactors, and thinks it 
 no degradation to commend and com- 
 memorate them. The voluntary out- 
 pouring of the public feeling, made 
 to-day, from the North to the South, 
 and from the East to the West, proves 
 this sentiment to be both just and 
 natural. In the cities and in the vil- 
 lages, in the public temples and in the 
 family circles, among all ages and 
 sexes, gladdened voices to-day bespeak 
 grateful hearts and a freshened recollec- 
 tion of the virtues of the Father of his 
 Country. And it will be so, in all 
 time to come, so long as public virtue is 
 itself an object of regard. The ingen- 
 uous youth of America will hold uj> to 
 themselves the bright model of Wash- 
 ington's example, and study to be what 
 they behold; they will contemplate his 
 character till all its virtues spread out 
 and display themselves to their de- 
 lighted vision; as the earliest astrono- 
 mers, the shepherds on the jilain* of 
 Babylon, gazed at the stars till they saw 
 them form into clusters and constella- 
 
 tions, overpowering at length the eyes 
 of the beholders with the united blaze 
 of a thousand lights. 
 
 Gentlemen, we are at a point of a 
 century from the birth of Washington; 
 and what a century it has been! Dur- 
 ing its course, the human mind has 
 seemed to proceed with a sort of ge- 
 ometric velocity, accomplishing foi hu- 
 man intelligence and human freedom 
 more than had been done in fives or 
 tens of centuries preceding. Wash- 
 ington stands at the commencement of 
 a new era, as well as at the head of the 
 New World. A century from the birth 
 of Washington has changed the world. 
 The country of Washington has been 
 the theatre on which a great part of 
 that change has been MTought, and 
 Washington himself a principal agent 
 by which it has been accomplished. 
 His age and his countiy are equally 
 full of wonders ; and of both he is the 
 chief. 
 
 If the poetical prediction, uttered a 
 few years before his birth, be true; if 
 indeed it be desigiied by Providence 
 that the grandest exhibition of human 
 character and human aft'airs shall be 
 made on this theatre of the Western 
 world ; if it be true that, 
 
 "The four first acts already past, 
 A fifih shall close the drama with the day , 
 Time's noblest offspring is the last " ; — 
 
 how could this imposing, swelling, final 
 scene be appropriately opened, how could 
 its intense interest be adequately sus- 
 tained, but by the introduction of just 
 such a character as our Washington? 
 
 Washington had attained his man- 
 hood when that spark of liberty was 
 struck out in his own country, which 
 has since kindled into a flame, and shot 
 its beams over the earth. In the flow 
 of a century from his birth, the world 
 has changed in science, in arts, in the 
 extent of commerce, in the improve- 
 ment of navigation, and in all that re- 
 lates to the civilization of man. Rut it 
 is the spirit of huma)i freedom, the new 
 elevation of individual man, in his 
 moral, social, and political character, 
 leading the whole long train of other 
 improvements, which has most remark- 
 
THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 341 
 
 ab'y distin^iished the era. Society, in 
 this century, has not made its progress, 
 like Chinese skill, by a gTeater acute- 
 ness of ingenuity in trifles; it has not 
 merely lashed itself to an increased 
 speed round the old circles of thought 
 and action ; but it has assumed a new 
 character; it has raised itself from be- 
 neath governments to a participation in 
 governments; it has mixed moral and 
 political objects with the daily pursuits 
 of individual men; and, with a freedom 
 and strength before altogether unknown, 
 it ha.s applied to these objects the whole 
 power of the human imderstanding. It 
 Las been the era, in short, when the 
 social principle has triumphed over the 
 feudal principle; when society has 
 maintained its rights against military 
 power, and established, on foundations 
 never hereafter to be shaken, its com- 
 petency to govern itself. 
 
 It was the extraordinary fortune of 
 Washingion, that, having been in- 
 trusted, in revolutionaiy times, with 
 the supreme military command, and 
 having fulfilled that trust with equal 
 reno'oai for wisdom and for valor, he 
 should be placed at the head of the first 
 government in which an attempt was to 
 be made on a large scale to rear the 
 fabric of social order on the basis of a 
 wi-itten constitution and of a pure rep- 
 resentative principle. A government 
 was to be established, without a throne, 
 without an aristocracy, without castes, 
 ordei's, or privileges; and this govern- 
 ment, instead of being a democracy, 
 existing and acting within the walls of 
 a single city, was to be extended over a 
 vast country, of different climates, in- 
 terests, and habits, and of various com- 
 munions of our common Christian faith. 
 The experiment certainly was entirely 
 new. A popular government of this 
 extent, it was evident, could be framed 
 only by carrying into full effect the 
 principle of representation or of dele- 
 gated power; and the world was to see 
 whether society coxdd, by the strength 
 of this principle, maintain its own 
 peace and good government, carry for- 
 ward its o\\ii great interests, and con- 
 duct itself to political renown and glory. 
 
 By the benignity of Providence, this 
 experiment, so full of interest to ua 
 and to our posterity for ever, so full of 
 interest, indeed, to the world in its pres- 
 ent generation and in all its generations 
 to come, was suffered to commence 
 under the guidance of Washington. 
 Destined for this high career, he was 
 fitted for it by wisdom, by virtue, by 
 patriotism, by discretion, by whatever 
 can inspire confidence in man toward 
 man. In entering on the untried 
 scenes, early disappointment and the 
 premature extinction of all hope of 
 success would have been certain, had it 
 not been that there did exist throughout 
 the country, in a most extraordinary 
 degree, an unwavering trust in him 
 who stood at the helm. 
 
 I remarked. Gentlemen, that the whole 
 world was and is interested in the result 
 of this experiment. And is it not so ? 
 Do we deceive ourselves, or is it true 
 that at this moment the career which 
 this government is running is among the 
 most attractive objects to the civilized 
 world ? Do we deceive ourselves, or is 
 it true that at this moment that love of 
 liberty and that understanding of its 
 true principles which are flying over the 
 whole earth, as on the wings of all the 
 winds, are really and truly of American 
 origin ? 
 
 At the period of the birth of Wash- 
 ington, there existed in Europe no polit- 
 ical liberty in large communities, except 
 in the provinces of Holland, and except 
 that England herself had set a great ex- 
 ample, so far as it went, by her glorious 
 Revolution of 1688. Everywhere else, 
 despotic power was predominant, and 
 the feudal or military principle held the 
 mass of mankind in hopeless bondage. 
 One half of Europe was crushed beneath 
 the Bourbon sceptre, and no conception 
 of political liberty, no hope even of re- 
 ligious toleration, existed among that 
 nation which was America's first ally. 
 The king was tlie state, the king was 
 the country, ihe king was all. There 
 was one king, with power not derived 
 from his people, and too high to be 
 questioned; and the rest were all sub- 
 jects, with no political right but ol edi- 
 
84: 
 
 THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 ence. All above was intangible power, 
 all below quiet subjection A recent oc- 
 currence in the French Chambers shows 
 us how public opinion on these subjects 
 is changed. A minister had spoken of 
 the "king's subjects." " There are no 
 Bubjects," exclaimed hundreds of voices 
 at once, "in a country where the people 
 make the king! " 
 
 Gentlemen, the spirit of human lib- 
 erty and of free government, nurtured 
 and grown into strength and beauty in 
 America, has stretched its course into 
 the midst of the nations. Like an ema- 
 nation from Heaven, it has gone forth, 
 and it will not return void. It must 
 change, it is fast changing, the face of 
 the earth. Our great, our high duty is 
 to show, in our owti example, that this 
 spirit is a spirit of health as well as a 
 spirit of power ; that its benignity is as 
 great as its strength ; that its efficiency 
 to secure individual rights, social rela- 
 tions, and moral order, is equal to the 
 irresistible force with which it prostrates 
 principalities and powers. The world, 
 at this moment, is regarding us with a 
 willing, but something of a fearful ad- 
 miration. Its deep and awful anxiety 
 is to learn whether free states may be 
 stable, as well as free ; whether popular 
 power may be trusted, as well as feared; 
 in short, whether wise, regular, and vir- 
 tuous self-government is a vision for the 
 contemplation of theorists, or a truth 
 established, illustrated, and brought into 
 practice in the countiy of Washington. 
 
 Gentlemen, for the earth which we 
 inhabit, and the whole circle of the sun, 
 for all the unborn races of mankind, we 
 seem to hold in our hands, for theii- 
 weal or woe, the fate of this experi- 
 ment. If we fail, who shall venture the 
 repetition ? If our example shall prove 
 to be one, not of encouragement, but of 
 terror, not fit to be imitated, but fit 
 only to be shunned, where else shall the 
 world look for free models ? If this 
 great Western Sun be struck out of the 
 firmaineut. at what other fountain shall 
 the lamp of liberty hereafter be lighted ? 
 What other orb shall emit a ray to glim- 
 mer, even, on the darkness of the world ? 
 
 There is no danger of our overrating 
 
 or overstating the important part whicn 
 we are now acting in human affairs. It 
 should not flatter our personal self-re- 
 spect, but it should reanimate our patri- 
 otic virtues, and inspire us with a deeper 
 and more solemn sense, both of our priv- 
 ileges and of our duties. AVe cannot 
 wish better for our countiy, nor for the 
 world, than that the same spirit which 
 influenced ^Vashington may influence all 
 who succeed him; and that the same 
 blessing from above, which attended his 
 efforts, may also attend theirs. 
 
 The principles of Washington's ad- 
 ministration are not left doubtful. They 
 are to be found in the Constitution it- 
 self, in the great measures recommended 
 and approved by him, in his speeches to 
 Congress, and in that most interesting 
 paper, his Farewell Addi'ess to the Peo- 
 ple of the United States. The success 
 of the government under his administra- 
 tion is the highest proof of the sound- 
 ness of these principles. And, after an 
 exj^erience of thirt}--five years, what is 
 there which an enemy could condemn ? 
 What is there which either his friends, 
 or the friends of the country, could wish 
 to have been otherwise ? I speak, of 
 course, of great measures and leading 
 principles. 
 
 In the first place, all his measures 
 were right in their intent. He stated 
 the whole basis of his own great charac- 
 ter, when he told the country, in the 
 homely phrase of the proverb, that hon- 
 esty is the best policy. One of the most 
 striking things ever said of him is, that 
 " /ic changed lyianllnfFs ideas of political 
 greatness."'^ To commanding talents, 
 and to success, the conmiou elements 
 of such gi-eatness, he added a disregard 
 of self, a spotlessness of motive, a steady 
 submission to every public and private 
 duty, which threw far into the sliaile 
 the wliole crowd of vulgar great. The 
 object of his regard was the whole coun- 
 try. No part of it was enough to fill his 
 enlarged ]iatriotism. His love of glory, 
 so far as tliat may be supposed to have 
 influenced him at all, spurned every thing 
 short of general approbation. It woidd 
 have been nothing to him, that his par- 
 
 1 See Works of Tislier Ames, pp. 122, 123. 
 
Tilt CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 343 
 
 tisans or his favorites outnumbered, or 
 outA'oted, or outmanaged, or outclam- 
 ored, those of other leaders. He had no 
 favorites; he rejected all partisanship; 
 and, acthig honestly for the universal 
 good, he deserved, what he has so richly 
 enjoyed, the universal love. 
 
 His principle it -was to act right, and 
 to trust the people for support ; his prin- 
 ciple it was not to follow the lead of 
 sinister and selfish ends, nor to rely on 
 the little arts of party delusion to obtain 
 public sanction for such a course. Born 
 for his country and for the world, he did 
 not give up to party what was meant 
 for mankind. The consequence is, that 
 his fame is as durable as his principles, 
 as lasting as truth and virtue them- 
 selves. While the hundreds whom par- 
 ty excitement, and temporary circum- 
 stances, and casual combinations, have 
 raised into transient notoriety, sink 
 again, like thin bubbles, bursting and 
 dissolving into the great ocean, Wash- 
 ington's fame is like the rock which 
 bounds that ocean, and at whose feet its 
 billows are destined to break harmlessly 
 for ever. 
 
 The maxims upon which Washington 
 conducted our foreign relations were few 
 and simple. The first was an entire and 
 indisputable impartiality towards for- 
 eign states. He adhered to this rule of 
 public conduct, against very strong in- 
 ducements to depart from it, and when 
 tlie popularity of the moment seemed to 
 favor such a departure. In the next 
 place, he maintained true dignity and 
 unsullied honor in all communications 
 with foreign states. It was among the 
 high duties devolved upon him, to intro- 
 duce our new government into the circle 
 of civilized states and powerful nations. 
 Not arrogant or assuming, with no un- 
 becoming or supercilious bearing, he yet 
 exacted for it from all others entire and 
 punctilious respect. He demanded, and 
 he obtained at once, a standing of per- 
 fect equality for his country in the soci- 
 ety of nations ; nor was there a prince 
 or potentate of his day, whose personal 
 character carried with it, into the inter- 
 course of other states, a greater degree 
 of respect and veneration. 
 
 He regarded other nations only as they 
 stood in political relations to us. With 
 their internal affairs, their political par- 
 ties and dissensions, he scrupulously ab- 
 stained from all interference; and, on 
 the other hand, he repelled with spirit 
 all such interference by others with ua 
 or our concerns. His sternest rebuke, 
 the most indignant measure of his whole 
 administration, was aimed against such 
 an attempted interference. He felt it as 
 an attempt to wound the national honor, 
 and resented it accordingly. 
 
 The reiterated admonitions in his 
 Farewell Address show his deep fears 
 that foreign influence would insinuate 
 itself into our counsels through the chan- 
 nels of domestic dissension, and obtain 
 a sympathy with our own temporary par- 
 ties. Against all such dangers, he most 
 earnestly entreats the country' to guard 
 itself. He appeals to its patriotism, to its 
 self-respect, to its own honor, to every 
 consideration connected with its welfare 
 and happiness, to resist, at the veiy be- 
 ginning, all tendencies towards such con- 
 nection of foreign interests with our 
 own affairs. With a tone of earnestness 
 nowhere else found, even in his last af- 
 fectionate farewell advice to his country- 
 men, he says, "Against the insidious 
 wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you 
 to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jeal- 
 ousy of a free people ought to be con- 
 stantly awake; since histoiy and experi- 
 ence prove, that foreign influence is one 
 of the most baneful foes of republican 
 government." 
 
 Lastly, on the subject of foreign rela- 
 tions, Washington never forgot that we 
 had interests peculiar to ourselves. The 
 primary political concerns of Europe, he 
 saw, did not affect us. We had nothing 
 to do with her balance of power, her 
 family compacts, or her successions to 
 thrones. We were placed in a condition 
 favorable to neutrality during European 
 wars, and to the enjoyment of all 
 the great advantages of that relation. 
 " 'WTiy, then," he asks us, " why forego 
 the advantages of so peculiar a situa- 
 tion? "\Miy quit our own to stand upon 
 foreign ground? "NMiy, by interweaving 
 our destiny with that of any part ol 
 
iJ44 
 
 THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 Europe, entangle our peace and pros- 
 perity in the toils of European amV)ition, 
 rivalsliip, interest, humor, or caprice? " 
 
 Indeed, Gentlemen, Washington's 
 Farewell Address is full of trutlis im- 
 portant at all times, and particularly 
 deserving consideration at the present. 
 AVith a sagacity which brought the fu- 
 ture before him, and made it like the 
 present, he saw and pointed out the 
 dangers that even at this moment most 
 iuniiinently threaten us. I hardly know 
 how a greater service of that kind 
 eoidd now be done to the community, 
 than by a renewed and wide diffusion 
 of that admirable paper, and an ear- 
 nest invitation to every man in the 
 countrj' to reperuse and consider it. 
 Its political maxims are invaluable ; its 
 exliortations to love of country and 
 to brotherly affection among citizens, 
 touching; and the solemnity with which 
 it urges the observance of moral duties, 
 and impresses the power of religious 
 obligation, gives to it the highest char- 
 acter of truly disinterested, sincere, pa- 
 rental advice. 
 
 The domestic policy of "Washington 
 found its pole-star in the avowed objects 
 of the Constitution itself. He sought so 
 to administer that Constitution, as to 
 form a more perfect union, establish 
 justice, insure domestic tranquillity, pro- 
 vide for the common defence, promote 
 the general welfare, and secure the bless- 
 ings of liberty. These were objects in- 
 teresting, in the highest degree, to the 
 whole country, and his policy embraced 
 the whole country. 
 
 Among his earliest and most impor- 
 tant duties was the organization of the 
 government itself, the choice of his con- 
 fidential advisers, and the various ap- 
 pointments to office. This duty, so 
 important and delicate, when a wliole 
 government was to be organized, and all 
 its offices for the first time filled, was 
 y3t not difficult to him; for he had no 
 sinister ends to accomplish, no clamorous 
 partisans to gi*atify, no pledges to re- 
 deem, no object to be regarded but simply 
 the public good. It was a plain, straight- 
 forwar<l uiatter, a mcM-e honest choice of 
 gfv->d men for the public service. 
 
 His own singleness of purpose, hi9 
 disinterested patriotism, were evinced 
 by the selection of his first Cabinet, and 
 by the manner in which he filled the 
 seats of justice, and other places of high 
 trust. He sought for men fit for offices ; 
 not for offices wliich might suit men. 
 Above personal considerations, above 
 local considerations, above party consid- 
 erations, he felt that he could only dis- 
 charge the sacred trast which the country 
 had placed in his hands, by a diligent 
 inqvury after real merit, and a consci- 
 entious preference of virtue and talent. 
 Tlie whole countiy was the field of his 
 selection. He explored that whole field, 
 looking only for whatever it contained 
 most worthy and distinguished. He was, 
 indeed, most successful, and he deserved 
 success for the purity of his motives, the 
 liberality of his sentiments, and his en- 
 larged and manly policy. 
 
 AVashingtou's administration estab- 
 lished the national credit, made pro- 
 vision for the public debt, and for that 
 patriotic army whose interests and wel- 
 fare were always so dear to him; and, 
 by laws wisely framed, and of admira- 
 ble effect, raised the commerce and nav- 
 igation of the country, almost at once, 
 from dejiression and ruin to a state of 
 prosperity. Nor were his eyes open to 
 these interests alone. He viewed with 
 equal concern its agricidtm-e and manu- 
 factures, and, so far as they came within 
 the regidar exercise of the powers of 
 this government, they experienced re- 
 gard and favor. 
 
 It should not be omitted, even in this 
 slight reference to tlie general measures 
 and general principles of the first Presi- 
 dent, that he saw and felt tlie full value 
 and importance of the judicial depart- 
 ment of the government. An upriglit 
 and able administration of the laws he 
 lield to be alike indispensable to private 
 happiness and public liberty. The tem- 
 ple of justice, in his opinion, was a 
 sacred place, and he woidd profane and 
 pollute it who should call any to minister 
 in it, not spotless in character, not in- 
 corruptible in integi-ity, not comjietent 
 by talent and learning, not a fit object 
 of unhesitating trust. 
 
THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 345 
 
 Among other admonitions, "Washing- 
 ton has left us, ill his hist coniniuni- 
 cation to his country, an exhortation 
 against the excesses of party spirit. A 
 fire not to be quenched, he yet conjures 
 us not to fan and feed the flame. Un- 
 doubtedly, Gentlemen, it is the greatest 
 danger of our system and of our time. 
 Undoubtedly, if that system should be 
 overthrown, it will be the work of ex- 
 cessive party spirit, acting on the gov- 
 ernment, which is dangerous enough, 
 or acting in the government, which is 
 a thousand times more dangerous; for 
 government then becomes nothing but 
 organized party, and, in the strange 
 vicissitudes of human affairs, it may 
 come at last, perhaps, to exhibit the 
 singular paradox of government itself 
 being in opposition to its own powers, 
 at war with the very elements of its own 
 existence. Such cases are liopeless. As 
 men may be protected against murder, 
 but cannot be guarded against suicide, 
 so government may be shielded from the 
 assaults of external foes, but nothing 
 can save it when it chooses to lay violent 
 hands on itself. 
 
 Finally, Gentlemen, there was in the 
 breast of Washington one sentiment so 
 deeply felt, so constantly uppermost, 
 that no proper occasion escaped without 
 its utterance. From the letter which he 
 signed in behalf of the Convention when 
 tlie Constitution was sent out to the 
 people, to the moment when he put his 
 hand to that last paper in which he 
 addressed his countrymen, the Union, — 
 the Union was the great object of his 
 thoughts. In that fii'st letter he tells 
 them that, to him and his brethren of 
 the Con'vention, union appears to be the 
 greatest interest of every true American ; 
 and in that last paper he conjures them 
 to regard that unity of government 
 which constitutes them one people as 
 the very palladium of their prosperity 
 and safety, and the security of liberty 
 itself. He regarded the union of these 
 States less as one of our blessings, than 
 as the gi-eat treasure-house which con- 
 tained them all. Here, in his judgment, 
 was the great magazine of all our means 
 of prosperity; here, as he thought, and 
 
 as every true American still thinks, are 
 deposited all our animating prospects, 
 all our solid hopes for future greatness. 
 He has taught us to maintain tliis union, 
 not by seeking to enlarge the powers of 
 the government, on the one hand, nor 
 by surrendering them, on the other; but 
 by an administration of them at onco 
 firm and moderate, pursuing objects 
 truly national, and carried on in a spirit 
 of justice and equity. 
 
 The extreme solicitude for the preser- 
 vation of the Union, at all times mani- 
 fested by him, shows not only tlie opin- 
 ion he entertained of its importance, but 
 his clear perception of those causes which 
 were likely to spring up to endanger it, 
 and which, if once they should over- 
 throw the present system, would leave 
 little hope of any future beneficial re- 
 union. Of all the presumptions indulged 
 by presumptuous man, that is one of the 
 rashest which looks for repeated and 
 favorable opportunities for the deliberate 
 establishment of a united government 
 over distinct and widely extended com- 
 munities. Such a thing has happened 
 once in human affau-s, and but once; 
 the event stands out as a prominent ex 
 ception to all ordinary history ; and un- 
 less we suppose ourselves running into 
 an age of mu-acles, we may not expect 
 its repetition. 
 
 Washington, therefore, could regard, 
 and did regard, nothing as of paramount 
 political interest, but the integrity oi 
 the Union itself. With a united govern- 
 ment, well administered, he saw that we 
 had nothing to fear; and without it, 
 nothing to hope. The sentiment is just, 
 and its momentous truth should sol- 
 emnly impress the whole country. If ne 
 might regard our country as personated 
 in the spirit of Washington, if we might 
 consider him as representing hei-, in iier 
 past renown, her present prosperity, and 
 her future career, and as in that charac- 
 ter demanding of us all to account for 
 our conduct, as political men or as pri- 
 vate citizens, how should he answer him 
 who has ventured to talk of disunion 
 and dismemberment? Or how should 
 he answer him who dwells perpetually 
 on local interests, and fans every kind- 
 
346 
 
 THE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 ling flame of local prejudice? How 
 should he answer him who would array 
 State against State, interest against in- 
 terest, and party against party, care- 
 less of the continuance of that vnily 
 of aocernment which constitutes us one 
 people ? 
 
 The political prosperity which this 
 :ountry has attained, and which it now 
 enjoys, has been acquired mainly through 
 the instrumentality of the present gov- 
 ernment. While this agent contin- 
 ues, the capacity of attaining to still 
 higher degrees of prosperity exists also. 
 We have, while this lasts, a political 
 life capable of beneficial exertion, with 
 power to resist or overcome misfortunes, 
 to sustain us against the ordinary acci- 
 dents of human affairs, and to promote, 
 by active efforts, every public interest. 
 But dismemberment strikes at the very 
 being which preserves these faculties. 
 It would lay its rude and ruthless hand 
 on this gi-eat agent itself. It would 
 sweep away, not only what we possess, 
 but all power of regaining lost, or ac- 
 quiring new possessions. It would leave 
 the country, not only bereft of its pros- 
 perity and happiness, but without limbs, 
 or organs, or faculties, by which to exert 
 itself hereafter in the pursuit of that 
 prosperity and happiness. 
 
 Other misfortunes may be borne, or 
 their effects overcome. \ If disastrous 
 war should sweep our commerce from 
 the ocean, another generation may re- 
 new it ; if it exhaust our treasury, future 
 industry may replenish it ; if it desolate 
 and lay waste our fields, still, under a 
 new cultivation, they will grow green 
 again, and ripen to future harvests. It 
 were but a trifle even if the walls of 
 yonder Capitol were to crumble, if its 
 lofty pillars should fall, and its gor- 
 geous decorations be all covered by the 
 dust of the valley. All these might be 
 rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the 
 fabric of demolished government V Who 
 ehall rear again the well-proportioned 
 eohmins of constitutional liberty? Who 
 
 shall frame together the skilful archi- 
 tecture which unites national sovereignty/ 
 with State rights, individual security, 
 and public prosperity? Xo, if these 
 columns fall, they will be raised not 
 again. Like the Coliseum and the Par- 
 thenon, they will be destined to a moiu'n- 
 ful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer 
 tears, however, will flow over them, than 
 were ever shed over the monuments of 
 Roman or Grecian art; for they will be 
 the remnants of a more glorious edific« 
 than Greece or Rome ever saw, the edi- 
 fice of constitutional American liberty.// 
 
 But let us hope for better things. 
 Let us trust in that gracious Being who 
 has hitherto held our country as in tlie 
 hollow of his hand. Let us trust to the 
 virtue and the intelligence of the people, 
 and to the efficacy of religious obliga- 
 tion. Let us trust to the influence ot 
 Washington's example. Let us hope 
 that that fear of Heaven which expels 
 all other fear, and that regard to duty 
 which transcends all other regard, may 
 influence public men and private citizens, 
 and lead our coiintry still onward in her 
 happy career. Full of these gratifying 
 anticipations and hopes, let us look for- 
 ward to the end of that century which 
 is now commenced. A hundred years 
 hence, other disciples of Washington 
 will celebrate his birth, with no less of 
 sincere admiration than we now com- 
 memorate it. When they shall meet, as 
 we now meet, to do themselves and him 
 tliat honor, so surely as they shall see 
 the blue summits of his native moun- 
 tains rise in the horizon, so surely as 
 they shall behold the river on whose 
 banks he lived, and on whose banks he 
 rests, still flowing on toward the sea, so 
 surely may tliey see, as we now see, the 
 flag of the Union floating on tlie top 
 of the Capitol; and then, as now, may 
 the sun in his course visit no land more 
 free, more liajipy, more lovely, than this 
 our own country! 
 
 Gentlemen, I propose — " Thf Mem 
 DRV OF George Washington." 
 
EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS 
 
 FROM OFFICE. 
 
 FROM A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONA^ENTION 
 HELD AT WORCESTER (iMASS.), ON THE 12th OF OCTOBER, 1832. 
 
 I nEGix, Sir, with the subject of re- 
 movals from office for opinion's sake, 
 one of the most signal instances, as I 
 think, of the att«mpt to extend execu- 
 tive power. This has been a leading 
 measure, a cardinal point, in the course 
 of the administration . It has proceeded, 
 from the fii'st, on a settled proscription 
 for political opinions; and this system 
 it has carried into operation to the full 
 extent of its ability. The President 
 has not only filled all vacancies with his 
 own friends, generally those most distin- 
 guished as personal partisans, but he 
 has turned out political opponents, and 
 thus created vacancies, in order that he 
 might fill them with his own friends. 
 I think the number of removals and ap- 
 pointments is said to be tivo thou!<and. 
 "While the administration and its friends 
 have been attempting to circumscribe 
 and to decry the powers belonging to 
 other branches, it has thus seized into 
 its ovra hands a patronage most pei- 
 nicious and corrupting, an authority 
 over men's means of living most tyran 
 nical and odious, and a power to punish 
 free men for political opinions alto- 
 gether intolerable. 
 
 You will remember, Sir, that the 
 Constitution says not one word about 
 the President's power of removal from 
 ottice. It is a power raised entirely by 
 construction. It is a constructive power, 
 introduced at first to meet cases of ex- 
 treme public necessity. It has now be- 
 come coextensive with the executive 
 
 will, calling for no necessity, requiring 
 no exigency for its exercise ; to be em- 
 ployed at all times, without control, 
 without question, without responsibility. 
 When the question of the President's 
 power of removal was debated in the 
 first Congress, those who argued for it 
 limited it to extreme cases. Cases, they 
 said, might arise, in which it would be 
 absolutely necessary to remove an officer 
 before the Senate could be assembled. 
 An officer might become insane; he 
 might abscond; and from these and 
 other supposable cases, it was said, the 
 public service might materially suffer if 
 the President could not remove the in- 
 cumbent. And it was further said, that 
 there was little or no danger of the 
 abuse of the power for party or personal 
 objects. Xo President, it was thought, 
 would ever commit such an outrage on 
 public opinion. Mr. Madison, who 
 thought the power ought to exist, and 
 to be exercised in cases of high necessity, 
 declared, nevertheless, that if a Presi- 
 dent should resort to the power wheu 
 not required by any public exigency, 
 and merely for personal objects, he would 
 deserve to be impeached. By a very small 
 majority, — I think, in the Senate, by 
 the casting vote of the Vice-President, 
 — Congress decided in favor of the ex- 
 istence of the power of removal, upon 
 the gi-ounds which I have mentioned; 
 gi-anting the power in a case of clear 
 and absolute necessity, and denying its 
 existence everywhere else. 
 
848 EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 
 
 Mr. President, we should recollect 
 that this question was discussed, and 
 thus decided, when Washington was in 
 the executive chair. Men knew that 
 in his hands the power would not be 
 a'msed; nor did they conceive it pos- 
 sible that any of his successors could so 
 far depart from his great and blight 
 exsnijile, as, by abuse of the power, and 
 by carrying that abuse to its utmost ex- 
 tent, to change the essential character 
 of the executive fi'om that of an impar- 
 tial guardian and executor of the laws 
 into that of the chief dispenser of party 
 rewards. Three or four instances of 
 removal occurred in the first twelve years 
 of the government. At the commence- 
 ment of Mr. Jefferson's administration, 
 he made several others, not without pro- 
 ducing much dissatisfaction; so much 
 so, that he thought it expedient to give 
 reasons to the people, in a public paper, 
 for even the limited extent to which he 
 had exercised the power. He rested his 
 justification on particular circumstances 
 and peculiar grounds; which, whether 
 substantial or not, showed, at least, that 
 he did not regard the power of re- 
 moval as an ordinary power, still less as 
 a mere arbitrary one, to be used as he 
 pleased, for whatever ends he pleased, 
 and without responsibility. As far as I 
 remember. Sir, after the early part of 
 ;Mr. Jefferson's administration, hardly 
 an instance occurred for near thirty 
 years. If there were any instances, 
 they were few. But at the commence- 
 ment of the present administration, the 
 precedent of these previous cases was 
 seized on, and a system, a regular plan 
 of government, a well-considered scheme 
 for the maintenance of party power by 
 the patronage of office, and this pat- 
 ronage to be created by general removal, 
 was adopted, and has been carried into 
 full operation. Indeed, before General 
 Jackson's inauguration, the party put 
 the system into practice. In the last 
 session of Mr. Adams's administration, 
 the friends of General Jackson consti- 
 tuted a majority in the Senate; and 
 nominations, made by Mr. Adams to 
 fill vacancies which had occurred in the 
 ordinary way, were postponed, by this 
 
 majority, beyond t>e 3d of Marcli, for 
 the purpose, openly avowed, of gijing the 
 nominations to General Jackscn. A 
 nomination fo' a judge of the Supreme 
 Court, and r.any others of less magni- 
 tude, were thus disposed of. 
 
 And what did we witness. Sir, when 
 the administration actually commenced, 
 in the full exercise of its authority ? 
 One universal sweep, one undistin- 
 guishing blow, levelled against all who 
 were not of the successful party. No 
 worth, public or private, no service, civil 
 or military, was of power to resist the 
 relentless greediness of proscription. 
 Soldiers of the late war, soldiers of the 
 Revolutionary war, the very contem- 
 poraries of the independence of the 
 country, all lost their situations. Xo 
 office was too high, and none too low; 
 for office was the spoil, and " aW the 
 spoils," it is said, "belong to the vic- 
 tors " ! If a man holding an office neces- 
 saiy for his daily support had present- 
 ed himself covered with the scars of 
 wounds received in every battle, from 
 Bunker Hill to Yorktown, these would 
 not have protected him against this reck- 
 less rapacity. Xay, Sir, if "Warren him- 
 self had been among the living, and 
 had possessed any office under govern- 
 ment, high or low, he would not have 
 been suffered to hold it a single hour, 
 unless he could sliow that he had strictly 
 complied with the party statutes, and 
 had put a well-marked party collar 
 round his own neck. Look, Sir, to the 
 case of the late venerable ^lajor Melville. 
 He was a personification of the spirit 
 of 1776, one of the earliest to venture 
 in the cause of liberty. He was of the 
 Tea Party ; one of the very first to ex- 
 pose himself to British power. And his 
 whole life was consonant with this, its 
 beginning. Always ardent in the cause 
 of liberty, always a zealous friend to his 
 country, always acting with the party 
 which he suppo.sed cherished the genuine 
 republican spirit most fervently, always 
 estimable and respectable in private life, 
 he seemed armed against this misei-able 
 petty tyranny of party as far as man 
 could be. But he felt its blow, and he 
 fell. He held an office in the custom- 
 
EXECDTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 349 
 
 house, and had held it for a long course 
 of years; and lie was deprived of it, as 
 if unworthy to serve the country which 
 he loved, and for whose liberties, in the 
 vigor of his early manhood, he had 
 thrust himself into the very jaws of its 
 enemies. There was no mistake in the 
 matter. His character, his standing, 
 his Kevolutionaiy services, were all 
 well known ; but they were known to no 
 purpose; they weighed not one feather 
 against party pretensions. It cost no 
 pains to remove him; it cost no com- 
 punction to wring his aged heart with 
 this retribution from his country for his 
 services, his zeal, and his fidelity. Sir, 
 you will bear witness, ^ that, when his 
 successor was nominated to the Senate, 
 and the Senate were informed who had 
 been removed to make way for that nom- 
 ination, its members were struck with 
 horror. They had not conceived the ad- 
 ministiatiou to be capable of such a 
 thing; and yet they said, What can ive do? 
 The man is removed; we cannot recall 
 him ; we can only act upon the nomina- 
 tion before us. Sir, you and I thought 
 otherwise; and I rejoice that we did 
 think otherwise. We thought it our duty 
 to resist the nomination to iill a vacancy 
 thus created. We thought it our duty 
 to oppose this proscription, when, and 
 where, and as, we constitutionally could. 
 We besought the Senate to go with us, 
 and to take a stand before the country on 
 this great question. We invoked them 
 to try the deliberate sense of the people ; 
 to trust themselves before the tribunal of 
 public opinion ; to resist at first, to resist 
 at last, to resist always, the introduction 
 of this unsocial, this mischievous, this 
 dangerous, this belligerent principle into 
 the practice of the government. 
 
 Mr. President, as far as I know, there 
 is no civilized country oi earth, in 
 which, on a change of rulers, there is 
 such an inquisition for spoil as we have 
 witnessed in this free republic. The 
 Inaugural Address of 1829 spoke of a 
 seaix/iing operation of government. The 
 most searching operation, Sir, of the 
 
 1 Hon. Nathaniel Silsbee, President of the 
 Convention, w.is Mr. \Veb>:ler's colleague in the 
 Senate at tlie time referred to. 
 
 present administration, has Iteen its 
 search for office and place. When, Sir, 
 did any Engli.sh minister. Whig or 
 Tdiy, ever make such an incpiestV 
 When did he ever go down to low- 
 water mark, to nuike an ousting of 
 tide-waiters? Wlien did he ever take 
 away the daily bread of weighers, and 
 gangers, and measurers? When did he 
 ever go into the villages, to distiib the 
 little post-offices, the mail contracts, and 
 every thing else in the remotest degree 
 connected Avith government? Sir, a 
 British minister who should do this, 
 and should afterwards show his head in 
 a British House of Commons, would be 
 received by a universal hiss. 
 
 I have little to say of the selections 
 made to fill vacancies thus created. It 
 is true, however, and it is a natural 
 consequence of the system which has 
 been acted on, that, within the last 
 three years, more nominations have 
 been rejected on the ground of unfitness, 
 than in all the preceding forty years of 
 the government. And these nomina- 
 tions, you know. Sir, could not have 
 been rejected but by votes of the 
 President's own friends. The cases 
 were too strong to be resisted. Even 
 party attachment could not stand them 
 In some not a third of the Senate, in 
 others not ten votes, and in others not a 
 single vote, could be obtained; and this 
 for no particular reason known only to 
 the Senate, but on general grounds of 
 the want of character and qualifications; 
 on grounds known to everybody else, as 
 well as to the Senate. All this. Sir, 
 is perfectly natural and consistent. The 
 same party selfishness which drives good 
 men out of office will push bad men in. 
 Political proscription leads necessarily to 
 the filling of offices with incompetent 
 persons, and to a consequent malexecu- 
 tion of official duties. And in my opin- 
 ion, Sir, this principle of claiming a 
 monopoly of office by the right of con- 
 quest, unless the public shall effectually 
 rebuke and restrain it, will entirely 
 change the character of our government. 
 It elevates party above country; it for- 
 gets the common weal in the ]>ursuit of 
 personal emolument; it tends to form. 
 
'50 EXECUTIVE PATRONAGE AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 
 
 it does foim, we see that it has formed, 
 a political combination, united by no 
 common principles or opinions among 
 its members, either upon the powers of 
 the government, or the true policy of 
 the country; but held together simply 
 as an association, under the charm of a 
 popular head, seeking to maintain pos- 
 session of the government by a vigorous 
 exercise of its patronage ; and for this 
 purj^wse agitating, and alarming, and 
 distressing social life by the exercise of 
 a tyrannical party proscription. Sir, if 
 this course of things cannot be checked, 
 good men will grow tired of the exercise 
 of political privileges. They will have 
 nothing to do with popular elections. 
 They will see that such elections are but 
 a mere selfish contest for office; and 
 they will abandon the government to 
 the scramble of the bold, the daring, 
 and the desperate. 
 
 It seems, Mr. President, to be a pe- 
 uiliar and singular characteristic of the 
 present administration, that it came 
 into power on a cry against abuses, 
 which did not exist, and then, as soon as 
 it was in, as if in mockery of the per- 
 ception and intelligence of the people, 
 it created those very abuses, and carried 
 them to a great length. Thus the chief 
 magistrate himself, before he came into 
 the chair, in a formal public paper, 
 denounced the practice of appointing 
 members of Congress to office. lie said, 
 that, if that practice continued, corrup- 
 tion ivould become the order of the day; 
 and, as if to fasten and nail down his 
 own consistency to that point, he de- 
 clared that it was due to himself to prac- 
 ti'ie what he recommended to others. Yet, 
 Sir, as soon as he was in power, these 
 fastenings gav^e way, the uaUs all flew, 
 and tlie promised consistency remains a 
 striking proof of the manner in which 
 political assurances are sometimes ful- 
 filled. He lias already appointed more 
 members of Congress to office than any 
 of his predecessors, in the longest period 
 of administration. Before his time, 
 there was no reason to complain of the.se 
 appointment;-.. Tliey had not been nu- 
 merous under any administration. Un- 
 der this, they have been numerous, and 
 
 some of them such as may weU justify 
 complaint. 
 
 Another striking instance of the ex- 
 hibition of the same characteristics may 
 be found in the sentiments of the Inau- 
 gural Address, and in the subsequent 
 practice, on the subject of interfering 
 with the freedom of elections. The Inau- 
 gural Address declares, that it is neces- 
 sai-y to reform abuses which have brought 
 the patronage of the government into con- 
 Jlict with the freedom of elections. And 
 what has been the subsequent practice? 
 Look to the newspapers; look to the 
 published letters of officers of the gov- 
 ernment, advising, exhorting, soliciting, 
 friends and partisans to greater exer- 
 tions in the cau.se of the party; see all 
 done, everywhere, which patronage and 
 power can do, to affect, not only elec- 
 tions in the general government, but 
 also in evei-y State government, and 
 then say how well this promise of re- 
 forming abuses has been kept. At what 
 former period, under what former ad- 
 ministration, did public officers of the 
 United States thus interfere in elections? 
 Certainly, Sir, never. In this respect, 
 then, as well as in others, that which 
 was not true as a charge against previous 
 administrations would have been true, 
 if it had assumed the form of a proph- 
 ecy respecting the acts of the present. 
 
 But there is another attempt to grasp 
 and to wield a power over public opin- 
 ion, of a still more daring character, and 
 far more dangerous effects. 
 
 In all popular governments, a Free 
 Press is the most important of all 
 agents and instruments. It not only 
 expresses public opinion, but, to a very 
 great degree, it contributes to form 
 that opinion. It is an engine for good 
 or for evil, as it may be directed; but 
 an engine of whicli nothinig can resist 
 the force. The conductors of the press, 
 in popular governments, occupy a place, 
 in the social and political system, of the 
 very highest consequence. They wear 
 the character of public instructors. 
 Their daily labors bear directly on the 
 intelligence, the morals, the taste, and 
 the public spirit of the country. Not 
 
EXECUTIVE TATRONAGE AND REINIOVALS FROM OFFICE. 
 
 351 
 
 only are they journalists, recording 
 political occurrences, but they discuss 
 principles, they comment on measures, 
 they canvass characters; they hold a 
 power over the reputation, the feelings, 
 the happiness of individuals. The pub- 
 lic ear is always open to their addresses, 
 the public sympathy easily made respon- 
 sjv.^ to their sentiments. It is indeed. 
 Sir, a distinction of high honor, that 
 theirs is the only profession expressly 
 protected and guarded by constitutional 
 enactments. Their employment soars 
 60 high, in its general conse(iuences it is 
 BO intimately connected with the public 
 happiness, that its security is provided 
 for by the fundamental law. AVhile it 
 acts in a manner worthy of this distinc- 
 tion, the press is a fountain of light, 
 and a source of gladdening warmth. It 
 instructs the public mind, and animates 
 the spirit of patriotism. Its loud voice 
 suppresses every thing which would raise 
 itself against the public liberty; and its 
 blasting rebuke causes incipient despot- 
 ism to perish in the bud. 
 
 But remember. Sir, that these are the 
 attributes of a free press only. And 
 is a press that is purchased or pensioned 
 more free than a press that is fettered? 
 Can the people look for truths to par- 
 tial sources, whether rendered partial 
 through fear or through favor? Why 
 shall not a manacled press be trusted 
 with the maintenance and defence of 
 popular rights? Because it is supposed 
 to be under the influence of a power 
 which may prove greater than the love 
 of truth. Such a press may screen 
 abuses in government, or be silent. It 
 may fear to speak. And may it not 
 fear to speak, too, when its conductors, 
 it they speak in any but one way, may 
 lose their means of livelihood? Is de- 
 pendence on government for bread no 
 temptation to screen its abuses? Will 
 the press always speak the truth, when 
 the truth, if spoken, may be the means 
 of silencing it for the future? Is the 
 truth in no danger, is the watchman 
 under no temptation, when he can nei- 
 ther proclaim the approach of national 
 evils, nor seem to descry them, without 
 the loss of his place? 
 
 Mr. President, an open attempt to 
 secure the aid and friendship of the 
 
 public press, by bestowing the emolu- 
 ments of oflice on its active conductors, 
 seems to me, of every thing we have 
 witnessed, to be the most reprehensible. 
 It degrades both the government and 
 the press. As far as its natural effect 
 extends, it turns the palladium of liberty 
 into an engine of party. It brings the 
 agency, activity, energy, and patronage 
 of government all to bear, with united 
 force, on the means of general intelli- 
 gence, and on the adoption or rejection 
 of political opinions. It so completely 
 perverts the true object of government, 
 it so entirely revolutionizes our whole 
 system, that the chief business of those 
 in power is directed rather to the propa- 
 gation of opinions favorable to them 
 selves, than to the execution of the laws. 
 This propagation of opinions, through 
 the press, becomes the main administra- 
 tive duty. Some fifty or sixty editors 
 of leading journals have been appointed 
 to office by the present executive. A 
 stand has been made against this pro- 
 ceeding, in the Senate, with partial suc- 
 cess; but, by means of appointments 
 which do not come before the Senate, or 
 other means, tlie number has been car- 
 ried to the extent I have mentioned. 
 Certainly, Sir, the editors of the publio 
 journals are not to be disfranchised. 
 Certainly they are fair candidates, either 
 for popular elections, or a just participa- 
 tion in office. Certainly they reckon in 
 their number some of the first geniuses, 
 the best scholars, and the most honest 
 and well-principled men in the ctmntry. 
 But the complaint is against the si/stem, 
 against the practice, against the undis- 
 guised attempt to secure the favor of 
 the press by means addressed to ita 
 pecuniary interest, and these means, 
 too, drawn from the public treasuiy, 
 being no other than the appointed com- 
 pensations for the performance of official 
 duties. Sir, the press itself should re- 
 sent this. Its own character for purity 
 and independence is at stake. It should 
 resist a connection rendering it obnox- 
 ious to so many imputations. It should 
 point to its honorable denomination in 
 
352 EXECUTIVE PATRONAGii AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. 
 
 our constitutions of government, and it 
 should maintain the character, there as- 
 cribed to it, of a Free Press. 
 
 There can, Sir, be no objection to the 
 appointment of an editor to office, if lie 
 is the fittest man. There can be no ob- 
 jection to considering the services which, 
 in that or in any other capacity, he may 
 have rendered his country. lie may 
 have done much to maintain her rights 
 against foreign aggression, and her char- 
 acter against insult. He may have hon- 
 ored, as well as defended her; and may, 
 therefore, be justly regarded and se- 
 lected, in the choice of faithful public 
 agents. But the ground of complaint 
 is, that the aiding, by the press, of the 
 election of an individual, is rewarded, by 
 that same individual, with the gift of 
 moneyed offices. Men are turned out 
 of office, and others put in, and receive 
 salaries from the public treasury, on the 
 gi'ound, either openly avowed or falsely 
 denied, that they have rendered service 
 in the election of the very individual 
 who makes this removal and makes this 
 appointment. Every man, Sir, must see 
 that this is a vital stab at the pui-ity of 
 the press. It not only assails its inde- 
 pendence, by addressing sinister motives 
 tn it, but it furnishes from the public 
 
 treasury the means of exciting these mo- 
 tives. It extends the executive power 
 over the press in a most daring manner. 
 It operates to give a direction to opinion, 
 not favorable to the government, in the 
 aggregate ; not favorable to the Consti- 
 tution and laws; not favorable to the 
 legislature; but favorable to the execu- 
 tive alone. The consequence often is, 
 just what might be looked for, that the 
 portion of the press thus made fast to 
 the executive interest denounces Con- 
 gress, denounces the judiciary, com- 
 plains of the laws, and quarrels with 
 the Constitution. This exercise of the 
 right of appointment to this end is an 
 augmentation, and a vast one, of the 
 executive power, singly and alone. It 
 uses that power strongly against all 
 other branches of the government, and 
 it uses it strongly, too, for any struggle 
 which it may be called on to make with 
 the public opinion of the countiy. Mr. 
 President, I will quit this topic. There 
 is much in it, in my judgment, affect- 
 ing, not only the purity and independ- 
 ence of the press, but also the character 
 and honor, the peace and security, of 
 the government. I leave it, in all its 
 bearings, to the consideration of the 
 people. 
 
EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 
 
 FROM THE SAME SPEECH AT WORCESTER. 
 
 Mr. Presiden t, the executive has not 
 only used these unaccustomed means to 
 prevent the passage of laws, but it lias also 
 refused to enforce the execution of laws 
 actually passed. An eminent instance 
 of this is found in the course adopted 
 relative to the Indian intercourse law of 
 1802. Upon being applied to, in behalf of 
 the Missionaries, to execute that law, 
 for their relief and protection, the Presi- 
 dent replied, that the State of Georgia 
 having extended her laws over the Indian 
 territory, the Unvs of Congress had thereby 
 been superseded. This is the substance 
 of his answer, as communicated through 
 the Secretary of War. He holds, then, 
 that the law of the State is paramount 
 to the law of Congress. The Supreme 
 Court has adjudged this act of Georgia 
 to be void, as being repugnant to a con- 
 stitutional law of the United States. 
 But the President pays no more regard 
 to this decision than to the act of Con- 
 gress itself. The missionaries remain 
 in prison, held there by a condenniation 
 under a law of a State which the su- 
 preme judicial tribunal has pronounced 
 to be null and void. The Supreme Court 
 have decided that the act of Congress is 
 constitutional ; that it is a binding stat- 
 ute ; that it has the same force as other 
 laws, and is as much entitled to be 
 obeyed and executed as other laws. 
 The President, on the contrary, declares 
 that the law of Congress has been super- 
 seded by the law of the State, and there- 
 fore he will not carry its provisions into 
 effect. Now we know. Sir, that the 
 Constitution of the United States de- 
 
 23 
 
 clares, that that Constitution, and all 
 acts of Congress passed in pursuance 
 of it, shall be the supreme law of the 
 land, any thing in any State law to the 
 contrary notwithstanding. This would 
 seem to be a phiin case, then, in which 
 the law should be executed. It has 
 been solemnly decided to be in actual 
 force, by the highest judicial authority; 
 its execution is demanded for the relief 
 of free citizens, now suffering the pains 
 of unjust and unlawful imprisonment; 
 yet the President refuses to execute it. 
 
 In the case of the Chicago Road, 
 some sessions ago, the President ap- 
 proved the bill, but accompanied hi? 
 approval by a message, saying how far 
 he deemed it a proper law, and how 
 far, therefore, it ought to be carried into 
 execution. 
 
 In the case of the harbor bill of the 
 late session, being applied to by a mem- 
 ber of Congress for dii-ections for carry- 
 ing parts of the law into effect, he 
 declined giving them, and made a dis- 
 tinction between such parts of the law 
 as he should cause to be executed, and 
 such as he should not; and his right to 
 make this distinction has been openly 
 maintained, by those who habitually 
 defend his measures. Indeed, Sir, these, 
 and other instances of liberties taken with 
 plain statute laws, flow naturally from 
 the principles expressly avowed by the 
 President, under his own hand. In that 
 important document. Sir, upon which it 
 seems to be his fate to stand or to fall 
 before the American people, the veto mes- 
 sage, he holds the following language* 
 
354 
 
 EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 
 
 " Each public officer who takes an oath 
 to support the Constitution, swears that 
 be will support it as he understands it, 
 and not as it is understood by others." 
 Mr. President, the general adoption of 
 the sentiments expressed in this sentence 
 would dissolve our government. It would 
 raise every man's private opinions into 
 a standard for his own conduct; and 
 there certainly is, there can be, no gov- 
 eniment, where every man is to judge 
 for himself of his own rights and his 
 own obligations. "N^Tiere every one is 
 his own arbiter, force, and not law, is 
 the governing power. lie who may 
 judge for himself, and decide for him- 
 self, must execute his own decisions; 
 and this is the law of force. I confess, 
 Sir, it strikes me with astonishment, that 
 60 wild, so disorganizing, a sentiment 
 should be uttered by a President of the 
 United States. I should tliink it must 
 have escaped from its author through 
 want of reflection, or from the habit of 
 little reflection on such subjects, if I 
 could suppose it possible, that, on a 
 question exciting so much public atten- 
 tion, and of so much national impor- 
 tance, any such extraordinary doctrine 
 could find its way, through inadvertence, 
 into a formal and solemn public act. 
 Standing as it does, it affirms a proposi- 
 tion which would effectually repeal all 
 constitutional and all legal obligations. 
 The Constitution declares, that every 
 public officer, in the State governments 
 as well as in the general government, 
 shall take an oath to support the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. This is 
 all. Would it not have cast an air of 
 ridicule on the whole provision, if the 
 Constitution had gone on to add the 
 words, " as he understands it "? AVhat 
 could come nearer to a solemn farce, 
 than to bind a man by oath, and still 
 leave him to be his own interpreter of 
 his own obligation? Sir, those who are 
 to execute the laws have no more a 
 license to construe them for themselves, 
 than those whose only duty is to obey 
 them. Public officers are bound to sujv 
 port the Con.stitution ; private citizens 
 are bound to obey it; and there is no 
 more indulgence granted to the public 
 
 officer to support the Constitution only 
 as he uitderstands it, than to a private 
 citizen to obey it only as he undtrstands 
 it, and what is time of the Constitu- 
 tion, in this respect, is equaUy true of 
 any law. Laws are to be executed, and 
 to be obeyed, not as individuals may in- 
 terpret them, but according to public, 
 authoritative interpretation and adjudi 
 cation. The sentiment of the message 
 would abrogate the obligation of the 
 whole criminal code. If every man is 
 to judge of the Constitution and the 
 laws for himself, if he is to obey and 
 support them only as he may say ho 
 understands them, a revolution, I think, 
 would take place in the administration 
 of justice; and discussions about the law 
 of treason, murder, and arson should be 
 addressed, not to the judicial bench, but 
 to those who might stand charged with 
 such offences. The object of discussion 
 should be, if we run out this notion to 
 its natural extent, to enlighten the cul- 
 prit himself how he ought to understand 
 the law. 
 
 Mr. President, how is it possible that 
 a sentiment so wild, and so dangerous, 
 so encouraging to all who feel a desire 
 to oppose the laws, and to impair the 
 Constitution, should have been uttered 
 by the President of the United States 
 at this eventful and critical moment? 
 Are we not threatened with dissolution 
 of the Union? Are we not told that 
 the laws of the government shall be 
 openly and directly resisted? Is not the 
 whole country looking, with the utmost 
 anxiety, to what may be the result of 
 these threatened courses? And at this 
 very moment, so full of peril to tha 
 state, the chief magistrate puts forth 
 opinions and sentiments as truly sub- 
 versive of all government, as absolutely 
 in conflict with tlie authority of the 
 Constitution, as the wildest theories of 
 nullification. !Mr. President, I have 
 very little regard for the law, or the 
 logic, of nullification. But there is not 
 an individual in its ranks, capable of 
 putting two ideas together, who, if you 
 will grant him the principles of the veto 
 message, cannot defend all that nullifi- 
 cation has ever threatened. 
 
EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 
 
 356 
 
 To make this assertion good, Sir, let 
 us see how the case stands. The Legis- 
 lature of South Carolina, it is said, will 
 nullify the late revenue or tariff law, 
 because, they say, it is not warranted by 
 the Constitution of the United States, as 
 they understhnd the Cunslitulion. They, 
 as well as the President of the United 
 States, have sworn to support the Con- 
 etitution . Both he and they have taken 
 the same oath, in the same words. 
 Now, Sir, since he claims the right to 
 interpret the Constitution as he pleases, 
 how can he deny the same right to 
 them? Is his oath less stringent than 
 theirs? lias he a prerogative of dis- 
 pensation which they do not possess? 
 How can he answer them, when they 
 tell him, that the revenue laws are 
 unconstitutional, as they understand the 
 Constitution, and that therefore they 
 ■will nullify them? AVill he reply to 
 them, according to the doctrines of his 
 annual message in 1830, that precedent 
 has settled the question, if it was ever 
 doubtful? They will answer him in his 
 own words in the veto message, that, in 
 such a ciise, precedent is not binding. 
 AVill he say to them, that the revenue 
 law is a law of Congress, which must 
 be executed until it shall be declared 
 void? They will answer him, that, in 
 other cases, he has himself refused to 
 execute laws of Congress which had not 
 been declared void, but which had been, 
 on the contrary, declared valid. Will 
 he urge the force of judicial decisions? 
 They will answer, that he himseif does 
 not admit the biiuiing obligation: of 
 such decisions. Sir, the President of 
 the United States is of opinion, that an 
 individual, called on to execute a law, 
 may himself judge of its constitutional 
 validity. Does nullification teach any 
 thing more revolutionary than that? 
 The President is of opinion, that judi- 
 cial interpretations of the Constitution 
 and the laws do not bind the con- 
 sciences, and ought not to bind the 
 conduct, of men. Is nullification at all 
 more disorganizing than that? The 
 President is of opinion, that every of- 
 ficer is bound to support the Constitu- 
 tion only according to what ought to be, 
 
 in his private opinion, its construction. 
 Has nullification, in its wildest flight, 
 ever reached to an extravagance like 
 that? No, Sir, never. The doctrine of 
 nullification, in my judgment a most 
 false, dangerous, and revolutionary doc- 
 trine, is this: that the Slate, or a State, 
 may declare the extent of the obliga- 
 tions which its citizens are under to the 
 United States; in other words, that a 
 State, by State laws and State judica- 
 tures, may conclusively construe the 
 Constitution for its own citizens. But 
 that every individual may construe it 
 for himself is a refinement on the theory 
 of resistance to constitutional power, a 
 sublimation of the right of being dis- 
 loyal to the Union, a free charter for the 
 elevation of private opinion above the 
 authority of the fundamental law of 
 the state, such as was never presented 
 to the public view, and the public aston 
 ishment, even by nullification itself. Its 
 first appearance is in the veto message. 
 iMelancholy, lamentable, indeed, Sir, is 
 our condition, when, at a moment of 
 serious danger and wide-spread alarm, 
 such sentiments are found to proceed 
 from the chief magistrate of the govern- 
 ment. Sir, I cannot feel that the Con- 
 stitution is safe in such hands. I can- 
 not feel that the present administration 
 is its fit and proper guardian. 
 
 But let me ask. Sir, what evidence 
 there is, that the President is himself 
 opposed to the doctrines of nullification : 
 I do not say to the political party which 
 now pushes these doctrines, but to the 
 doctrines themselves. Has he anywhere 
 rebuked them? Has he anywhere dis- 
 couraged them? Has his influence been 
 exerted to inspire respect for the Con- 
 stitution, and to produce obedience to 
 the laws? Has he followed the bright 
 example of his predecessors? Has he 
 held fast by the institutions of the coun- 
 tiy? Has he summoned the good and 
 the wise around him ? Has he admon- 
 ished the counti-y that the Union is in 
 danger, and called on all the patriotic 
 to come out in its support? Alas! Sir, 
 we have seen nothing, nothing, of all 
 this. 
 
 Mr. Preside!. t, I shall not discuss the 
 
356 
 
 EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 
 
 doctrine of nullification. T am sure it 
 can have no friends here. Gloss it and 
 disguise it as we may, it is a pretence 
 incompatible with the authority of the 
 Constitution. If direct separation be 
 not its only mode of operation, separa- 
 tion is, nevertheless, its direct conse- 
 quence. That a State may nullify a 
 law of the Union, and still remain in 
 the Union; that she may have Senators 
 and Representatives in the government, 
 and yet be at liberty to disobey and 
 resist that government; that she may 
 partake in the common councils, and yet 
 not be bound by their results; that she 
 may control a law of Congress, so that it 
 shall be one thing with her, while it is 
 another thing with the rest of the States; 
 — all these propositions seem to me so 
 absolutely at war with common sense 
 and reason, that I do not understand 
 how anj' intelligent person can yield the 
 slightest assent to them. Nullification, 
 it is in vain to attempt to conceal it, is 
 dissolution; it is dismembei-ment; it is 
 the breaking up of the Union. If it 
 shall practically succeed in any one 
 State, from that moment there are 
 twenty-four States in the Union no 
 longer. Now, Sir, I think it exceed- 
 ingly probable that the President may 
 come to an open rupture with that por- 
 tion of his original party which now 
 constitutes what is called the XuUifica- 
 tion party. I think it likely he will 
 oppose the proceedings of that party, if 
 they shall adopt measures coming di- 
 rectly in conflict with the laws of the 
 United States. But how will he op- 
 pose ? What will be his course of 
 remedy? Sir, I wish to call the atten- 
 tion of the Convention, and of the peo- 
 ple, earnestly to this question, — How 
 will the President attempt to put down 
 nullification, if he shall attempt it at 
 all? 
 
 Sir, for one, I protest in advance 
 against such remedies as I have heard 
 hinted. The administration itself keeps 
 a profound silence, but its friends liave 
 spoken for it. We are told, Sir, that 
 the President will immediately employ 
 the military force, and at once block- 
 tde Charleston! A military remedy, a 
 
 remedy by direct belligerent operation, 
 has been thus suggested, and nothing 
 else has been suggested, as the intended 
 means of preserving the Union. Sir. 
 there is no little reason to think, tliat 
 this suggestion is true. We cannot be 
 altogether unmindful of tlie past, and 
 therefore we cannot be altogether unap- 
 prehensive for the future. For one. Sir, 
 I raise my voice beforehand against the 
 unauthorized employment of military 
 power, and against superseding the au- 
 thority of the laws, by an armed force, 
 under pretence of putting down nullifi- 
 cation. The President has no authority 
 to blockade Charleston; the President 
 has no authority to employ military 
 force, till he shall be duly required so to 
 do, by law, and by the civil authorities. 
 His duty is to cause the laws to be exe- 
 cuted. His duty is to support the civil 
 authority. His duty is, if the laws be 
 resisted, to employ the military force of 
 the country, if necessary, for their sup- 
 port and execution; but to do all this in 
 compliance only with law, and with de- 
 cisions of the tribunals. If, by any in- 
 genious devices, those who resist the 
 laws escape from the reach of judicial 
 authority, as it is now provided to be 
 exercised, it is entirely competent to 
 Congress to make such new provisions 
 as the exigency of the case may de- 
 mand. These provisions undoubtedly 
 woidd be made. With a constitutional 
 and efficient head of the government, 
 with an administration really and truly 
 in favor of the Constitution, the coun- 
 try can grapple with nullification. By 
 the force of reason, by the jn-ogress of 
 enlightened opinion, by the natural, 
 genuine patriotism of the country, and 
 by the steady and well-sustained opera- 
 tions of law, the progress of disorgan- 
 ization may be successfully checked, and 
 the Union maintained. Let it be re- 
 membered, that, where nullification is 
 most powerful, it is not unopposed. 
 Let it be reinenibored, that they who 
 would break up the Union by force have 
 to march toward that object through 
 thick ranks of as brave and good 
 men as the country can show, — men 
 strong in character strong in intelli- 
 
EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 
 
 557 
 
 gence, strong in the purity of their own 
 niotivi.'s, and ready, always ready, to 
 sacrifice their fortunes and their lives 
 to the preservation of the constitutional 
 union of the States. If we can relieve 
 the country from an administration 
 which denies to the Constitution those 
 powers which are the breath of its life; 
 if we can place the government in the 
 hands of its friends; if we can secure it 
 ftc^ainst the dangers of irregular and 
 unlawful military force; if it can be 
 under the lead of an administration 
 whose moderation, firmness, and wis- 
 dom shall inspire confidence and com- 
 mand respect, — we may yet surmount 
 the dangers, numerous and formidable 
 as they are, which surround us. 
 
 Sir, I see little prospect of overcom- 
 ing these dangers without a change of 
 men. After all that has passed, the 
 re-election of the present executive will 
 give the national sanction to sentiments 
 and to measures which will effectually 
 change the government; which, in short, 
 must destroy the government. If the 
 President be re-elected, with concur- 
 rent and co-operating majorities in both 
 houses of Congress, I do not see, that, 
 in four years more, all the power which 
 is suffered to remain in the government 
 will not be held by the executive hand. 
 Nullification will proceed, or will be put 
 down by a power as unconstitutional as 
 itself. The revenues will be managed 
 by a treasury bank. The use of the 
 veto will be considered as sanctioned by 
 the public voice. The Senate, if not 
 "cut down," will be bound down, and, 
 the President commanding tlie army 
 and the navy, and holding all places 
 of trust to be party property, what 
 will then be left, Sir, for constitutional 
 reliance? 
 
 Sir, we have been accustomed to ven- 
 erate the judiciary, and to repose hopes 
 of safety on that branch of the govern- 
 numt. But let us not deceive ourselves. 
 Tlie judicial power cannot stand for a 
 long time against the executive power. 
 The judges, it is true, hold their places 
 by an independent tenure; but they are 
 mortal. That which is the conimou lot 
 of humanity must make it necessary to 
 
 renew the benches of justice. And how 
 will they be filled? Doubtless, Sir, they 
 will be filled by judges agreeing with 
 the President in liis constitutional opin- 
 ions. It" the court is felt as an obstacle, 
 the first opportunity and every opportu- 
 nity will certainly be embraced to give 
 it less and less the character of an 
 obstacle. Sir, without pursuing tl ese 
 suggestions, I only say that the country 
 nuist prepare itself for any change in 
 the judicial department such as it shall 
 deliberately sanction in other depart- 
 ments. 
 
 But, Sir, what is the prospect of 
 change ? Is there any hope that the 
 national sentiment will i-ecover its ac- 
 customed tone, and restore to the gov- 
 ernment a just and efficient adminis- 
 tration? 
 
 Sir, if tliere be something of doubt on 
 this point, there is also something, per- 
 haps much, of hope. The popularity of 
 the present chief magistrate, springing 
 from causes not connected with his ad- 
 ministration of the government, has 
 been great. Public gratitude for mili- 
 tary service has remained fast to hiin, 
 in defiance of many things in his civil 
 administration calculated to weaken its 
 hold. At length there are indications, 
 not to be mistaken, of new sentiments 
 and new impressions. At length, a 
 conviction of danger to important in- 
 terests, and to the security of the gov- 
 ernment, has made its lodgement in the 
 public mind. At length, public senti- 
 ment begins to have its free course and 
 to produce its just effects. I fully be- 
 lieve, Sir, that a great majority of the 
 nation desire a change in the admin s- 
 tration; and that it will be difficult tor 
 party organization or party denunciation 
 to suppress the effective utterance of 
 that general wish. There are unhappy 
 differences, it is true, about the fit per- 
 son to be successor to the present incum- 
 bent in the chief magistracy; and it is 
 possible that this disunion may, in the 
 end, defeat the will of the majority. 
 But so far as we agree together, let us 
 act together. Wlierever om- sentiments 
 concur, let our hands co-operate. If 
 we cannot at present agree who should 
 
858 
 
 EXECUTIVE USURPATION. 
 
 be President, we are at least agreed who 
 ought not to be. I fulh Relieve, Sir, 
 that gratifying intelligence i-s already on 
 the wing. While we are yet deliberat- 
 ing in Massachusetts, Penn.sy]vauia is 
 voting. This week, she elects her mem- 
 bers to the next Congress. I doubt not 
 the result of that election will show an 
 important change in public sentiment 
 in that State ; nor can I doubt that the 
 great States adjoining her, holding 
 similar constitutional principles and 
 having similar interests, will feel the 
 impul.se of the same causes which affect 
 her. The people of the United States, 
 by a countless majority, are attached to 
 the Constitution. If they shall be con- 
 vinced that it is in danger, they will 
 come to its rescue, and will save it. It 
 cannot be destroyed, even now, if they 
 will undertake its guardianship and 
 protection. 
 
 But suppose. Sir, there was less hope 
 than there is, would that consideration 
 weaken the force of our obligations? 
 Are we at a post which we are at liberty 
 to desert when it becomes difficult to 
 hold it? Jlay we fly at the approach of 
 danger? Does our fidelity to the Con- 
 stitution require no more of us than to 
 enjoy its blessings, to bask in the pros- 
 perity which it has shed around us and 
 our fathers? and are we at liberty to 
 abandon it in the hour of its peril, or to 
 make for it but a faint and heartless 
 struggle, for the want of encourage- 
 ment and the want of hope ? Sir, if no 
 State come to our succor, if everywhere 
 else the contest should be given up, here 
 let it be protracted to the last moment. 
 Here, where the first blood of the Revo- 
 lution was shed, let the last effort be 
 made for that which is the greatest 
 blessing obtained by the Revolution, a 
 free and united government. Sir, in 
 our endeavors to maintain our existing 
 
 forms of government, we are acting not 
 for ourselves alone, but for the great 
 cause of constitutional liberty all over 
 the globe. We are trustees holdmg a 
 sacred treasure, in which all the lovers 
 of freedom have a stake. Not only in 
 revolutionized France, where there are 
 no longer subjects, where the monarch 
 can no longer say, I am the state; not 
 only in reformed England, where our 
 principles, our institutions, our practice 
 of free government, are now daily quoted 
 and commended; but in the depths of 
 Germany, also, and among the desolated 
 fields and the still smoking ashes of 
 Poland, prayers are uttered for the 
 preservation of our union and happiness. 
 We are surrounded. Sir, by a cloud of 
 witnesses. The gaze of the sons of lib- 
 erty, everywhere, is upon us, anxiously, 
 intently, upon us. They may see us 
 faU in the struggle for our Constitution 
 and government, but Heaven forbid that 
 they should see us recreant. 
 
 At least, Sir, let the star of Massa- 
 chusetts be the last which shall be seen 
 to fall from heaven, and to plunge into 
 the utter darkness of disunion. Let 
 her shrink back, let her hold otliers back 
 if she can, at any rate, let her keep her- 
 self back, from this gulf, full at once of 
 fire and of blackness; yes, Sir, as far as 
 human foresight can scan, or human 
 imagination fathom, full of the fire and 
 the blood of civil war, and of the thick 
 darkness of general political disgrace, 
 ignominy, and ruin. Though the worst 
 may happen tliat can happen, and 
 though she may not be able to prevent 
 the catastrophe, yet let her maintain 
 her own integrity, her own high honor, 
 her own unwavering fidelity, so that 
 with respect and decency, though with 
 a broken and a bleeding heart, she maj 
 pay the last tribute to a glorious, de- 
 parted, free Constitution. 
 
THE NATURAL HATRED OF THE POOR TO 
 
 THE RICH. 
 
 FROM A SFEETH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANTJABY 81« 
 1834, ON "THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS." 
 
 Sir, there is one other subject on 
 which I wish to raise my voice. There 
 is a topic which I perceive is to be- 
 come the general war-cry of party, on 
 which I talve the liberty to warn the 
 country against delusion. Sir, the cry 
 is to be raised that this is a question 
 between the poor and the rich. I know. 
 Sir, it has been proclaimed, that one 
 thing was certain, that there was always 
 a hatred on the part of the poor toward 
 the rich; and that this hatred would 
 support the late measures, and the put- 
 ting down of the bank. Sir, I will not 
 be silent at the threat of such a detesta- 
 ble fraud on public opinion. If but ten 
 men, or one man, in the nation will hear 
 my voice, I will still warn them against 
 this attempted imposition. 
 
 Mr. President, this is an eventful mo- 
 ment. On the great questions which 
 occupy us, we all look for some decisive 
 movement of public opinion. As I wish 
 that movement to be free, intelligent, 
 and unbia>;sed, the true manifestation of 
 the public will, I desire to prepare the 
 country for another appeal, which I 
 perceive is about to be made to popular 
 prejudice, another attempt to obscure 
 aU distinct views of the public good, to 
 overwhelm all patriotism and all enlight- 
 ened self-interest, by loud cries against 
 false danger, and by exciting the pas- 
 sions of one class against another. I 
 am not mistaken in the omen ; I see the 
 magazine whence the weapons of this 
 warfaie are to be di-awn. I hear already 
 the din of the hammering of arms pre- 
 
 paratory to the combat. They may be 
 such arras, perhaps-, as reason, and jus- 
 tice, and honest patriotism cannot resist. 
 Every effort at resistance, it is possible, 
 may be feeble and powerless; but, for 
 one, I shall make an effort, — an effort 
 to be begun now, and to be carried on 
 and continued, with untiring zeal, tiU 
 the end of the contest. 
 
 Sir, I see, in those vehicles which 
 carry to the people sentiments from high 
 places, plain declarations that the pres- 
 ent controversy is but a strife between 
 one part of the community and another. 
 I hear it boasted as the unfailing secu- 
 rity, the solid ground, never to be shaken, 
 on which recent measures rest, that the 
 poor naturally hate the rich. I know 
 that, under the cover of the roofs of the 
 Capitol, within the last twenty-four 
 hours, among men sent here to devise 
 means for the public safety and the 
 public good, it has been vaunted forth, 
 as matter of boast and triumph, that 
 one cause existed powerful enough to 
 support every thing and to defend every 
 thing; and that was, the natural hatrea 
 of the poor to the rich. 
 
 Sir, I pronounce the author of such 
 sentiments to be guilty of attempting a 
 detestable fraud on the community; a 
 double fraud; a fraud which is to cheat 
 men out of their property, and out of the 
 earnings of their labor, by first cheating 
 them out of their understandings. 
 
 " The natural hatred of the poor to 
 the rich!" Sir, it shall not be till the 
 last moment of my existence, — it shall 
 
360 
 
 THE NATURAL HATRED OF THE POOR TO THE RICH. 
 
 be ouly when I am drawn to the verge 
 of oblivion, when I shall cease to have 
 respect or affection for any thing on 
 earth, — tliat I •will believe the people 
 of the United States capable of being 
 effectually deluded, cajoled, and dricen 
 about in herds, by such abominable 
 frauds as this. If they shall sink to 
 that jwint, if they so far cease to be 
 men, thinking men, intelligent men, as 
 bo yield to such pretences and such 
 clamor, they will be slaves already ; 
 slaves to their own passions, slaves to 
 the fraud and knavery of pretended 
 friends. They will desei-ve to be blotted 
 out of all the records of freedom ; they 
 ought not to dishonor the cause of self- 
 government, by attempting any longer 
 to exercise it; they ought to keep their 
 unworthy hands entirely off from the 
 cause of republican liberty, if they are 
 capable of being the victims of artifices 
 so shallow, of tricks so stale, so thread- 
 bare, so often practised, so much worn 
 out, on serfs and slaves. 
 
 " The natural hatred of the poor 
 against the rich! " " The danger of a 
 moneyed aristocracy!" "A power as 
 great and dangerous as that resisted by 
 the Revolution!" "A call to a new 
 declaration of independence! " Sir, I 
 admonish the people against the object 
 of outcries like these. I admouish every 
 industrious laborer in the country to be 
 on his guard against such delusion. I 
 tell him the attempt is to play off his 
 passions against his interests, and to 
 prevail on him, in the name of liberty, 
 to destroy all the fruits of liberty; in 
 the name of patriotism, to injure and 
 afflict his country; and in the name of 
 his own independence, to destroy that 
 very independence, and make him a 
 beggar and a slave. Has he a dollar? 
 He is advised to do that which will de- 
 stroy half its value. Has he hands to 
 labor? Let him rather fold them, and 
 sit still, than be pushed on, by fraud 
 and artifice, to support measures which 
 will render his labor useless and hope- 
 less. 
 
 Sir, the very man, of all others, who 
 has the deepest interest in a sound cur- 
 rency, and who suffers most by mis- 
 
 chievous legislation in money matters, 
 is the man who earns his daily bread 
 by his daily toil. A depreciated cur- 
 rency, sudden changes of prices, paper 
 money, falling between morning and 
 noon, and falling still lower between 
 noon and night, — these things consti- 
 tute the very harvest-time of specula- 
 tors, and of the whole race of those 
 who are at once idle and crafty ; and of 
 that other race, too, the Catiliues of all 
 times, marked, so as to be known for 
 ever by one stroke of the historian's 
 pen, those greedy of other men's property 
 and prodigal of their own. Capitalists, 
 too, may outlive such times. They may 
 either prey on the earnings of labor, by 
 their cent, per cent., or they may hoard. 
 But the laboring man, what can he 
 hoard? Preying on nobody, he becomes 
 the prey of all. His property is in his 
 hands. His reliance, his fund, his pro- 
 ductive freehold, his all, is his labor. 
 Whether he work on his own small cap- 
 ital, or another's, his living is still earned 
 by his industry; and when the money 
 of the country becomes depreciated and 
 debased, whether it be adulterated coin 
 or paper without credit, that industry is 
 robbed of its reward. He then labors 
 for a countiy whose laws cheat him out 
 of his bread. I would say to every 
 owner of every quarter-section of land 
 in the West, I would say to every man 
 in the East who follows his own plough, 
 and to eveiy mechanic, artisan, and la- 
 borer in every city in the country, — I 
 would say to every man, everywhere, 
 who wishes by honest means to gain an 
 honest living, "Beware of wolves in 
 sheep's clothing. Whoever attempts, 
 under whatever popular cry, to shake the 
 stability of the public currency, bring 
 on distress in money matters, and drive 
 the country into the use of paper money, 
 stabs your interest and your happiness 
 to the heart." 
 
 The herd of hungry wolves who live 
 on other men's earnings will rejoice in 
 such a state of things. A system which 
 absorbs into their pockets the fruits of 
 other men's industiy is the very system 
 for them. A government that produces 
 or countenances uncertainty, fluctua- 
 
THE NiiTURAL IIATKED OF THE POOH TO THE RICH. 
 
 361 
 
 tions, violent risings and fallings in 
 prices, and, finally, paper money, is 
 a government exactly after their own 
 heart. Hence these men are always for 
 change. Tliey will never let well enough 
 alone. A condition of public affairs in 
 which property is safe, industry certain 
 of its reward, and every man secure in 
 his own hard-earned gains, is no para- 
 dise for them. Give them just the re- 
 verse of this state of things; bring on 
 change, and change after change; let it 
 not be known to-day what will be the 
 value of property to-morrow; let no man 
 be able to say whether the money in his 
 pockets at night will be money or worth- 
 less rags in the morning; and depress 
 labor till double work shall earn but 
 half a living, — give them this state of 
 things, and you give them the consum- 
 mation of their earthly bliss. 
 
 Sir, the great interest of this great 
 country, the producing cause of all its 
 prosperity, is labor! labor! labor! We 
 are a laboring community. A vast ma- 
 jority of us all live by industry and ac- 
 tual employment in some of their forms. 
 The Constitution was made to protect 
 this industry, to give it botli encourage- 
 ment and security; but, above all, se- 
 curity. To that very end, with that 
 precise object in view, power was given 
 to Oongiess over the currency, and over 
 tlie money system of the country. In 
 
 forty years' experience, we have found 
 nothing at all adequate to tlie beneficial 
 execution of this trust but a well-con- 
 ducted national bank. That h;is been 
 tried, returned to, tried again, and al- 
 ways found successful. II it be not the 
 proper thing for us, let it be soberly 
 argued against; let something better 
 be proposed; let the country examine 
 the matter coolly, and decide for itself. 
 But whoever shall attempt to carry a 
 question of this kind by clamor, and 
 violence, and prejudice; whoever would 
 rouse the people by appeals, false and 
 fraudulent appeals, to their love of inde- 
 pendence, to resist the establishment of 
 a useful institution, because it is a bank, 
 and deals in money, and who artfully 
 urges these appeals wherever he thinks 
 there is more of honest feeling than of 
 enlightened judgment, — means nothing 
 but deception. And whoever has the 
 wickedness to conceive, and the hardi- 
 hood to avow, a purpose to break down 
 what has been found, in forty years' 
 experience, essential to the protection 
 of all interests, by arraying one class 
 against another, and by acting on such 
 a principle as that the poor always hate 
 the rich, shows himself the reckless ene- 
 my of all. An enemy to his whole 
 country, to all classes, and to every man 
 in it, he deserves to be marked eap&- 
 cially a> the poor man's curse I 
 
A REDEEMABLE PAPER CURRENCY. 
 
 FfiOM A SI'EECn DELIVERED IX THE SENATE OF TUE UNITED STATES, ON 
 
 TUE22D OF FEBRUARY, 1834. 
 
 Mr. President, — The honorable 
 member from Georgia stated yesterday, 
 more distinctly than I have before learned 
 it, what that experiment is which the 
 government is now trying on the revenues 
 and the currency, and, I may add, on 
 the commerce, manufactures, and agri- 
 culture of this country. If I rightly 
 apprehend him, this experiment is an 
 attempt to return to an exclusive specie 
 currency, first, by employing the State 
 banks as a substitute for the Bank of 
 the United States; and then by dispens- 
 ing with the use of the State banks 
 themselves. 
 
 This, Sir, is the experiment. I thank 
 the gentleman for thus stating its char- 
 acter. He has done his duty, and dealt 
 fairly with the people, by this exhibi- 
 tion of what the views of the executive 
 government are, at this iuteiestiug mo- 
 ment. It is cei'tainly most proper that 
 the people should see distinctly to what 
 end or for what object it is that so much 
 suffering is already upon them, and so 
 much more already in visible and near 
 prospect. 
 
 And now, Sir, is it possible, — is it 
 possible that twelve millions of intelli- 
 gent people can be expected voluntarily 
 to subject themselves to severe distress, 
 of unknown duration, for the purpose 
 of making trial of an experiment like 
 this? Will a nation that is intelligent, 
 well informed of its own interest, en- 
 lightened, and capable of self-govern- 
 ment, submit to suffer embarrassment 
 in all its pmsuits, loss of capital, loss 
 
 of employment, and a sudden and dead 
 stop in its onward movement in the path 
 of prosperity and wealth, until it shall 
 be ascertained whether this new-hatched 
 theory shall answer the hopes of those 
 who have devised it? Is the country to 
 be persuaded to bear every thing, and 
 bear patiently, until the operation of 
 such an experiment, adopted for such 
 an avowed object, and adopted, too, 
 without the co-operation or consent of 
 Congress, and by the executive power 
 alone, shall exhibit its results? 
 
 In the name of the hundreds of thou- 
 sands of our suffering fellow-citizens, I 
 ask, for what I'easonable end is this ex- 
 periment to be tried? "What great and 
 good object, worth so much cost, is it to 
 accomplish? What enormous evil is to 
 be remedied by all this inconvenience 
 and all this suffering? What great ca- 
 lamity is to be averted? Have the peo- 
 ple thronged our doors, and loaded our 
 tables with petitions for relief against 
 the pressure of some political mischief, 
 some notorious misrule, which this ex- 
 periment is to redress? Has it been re- 
 sorted to in an hour of misfortune, ca- 
 lamity, or peril, to save the state ? Is it 
 a measure of remedy, yielded to the im- 
 portunate cries of an agitated and dis- 
 tressed nation ? Far, Sir, very far from 
 all this. There was no calamity, there 
 was no suffering, there was no peril, 
 when these measures began. At the 
 moment when this experiment was en- 
 tered upon, these twelve millions of peo- 
 ple weie prosperous and hapi-y, not only 
 
A KEDEEMABLE PAPER CURREXCY. 
 
 363 
 
 beyoi-.d the example of all others, but 
 even beyond their own example in 
 times past. 
 
 There was no pressure of public or 
 private distress throughout the whole 
 land. All business was prosperous, all 
 industry was rewarded, and cheerful- 
 ness and content universally prevailed. 
 Yet, in the midst of all this enjoyment, 
 with .^o much to heighten and so little 
 to mar it, this experiment comes upon 
 us, to harass aud oppress us at present, 
 and to affright us for the future. Sir, 
 it is incredible; the world abroad will 
 not believe it ; it is difficult even for us 
 to credit, who see it with our own eyes, 
 that the country, at such a moment, 
 should put itself upon an experiment 
 fraught with such immediate and over- 
 whelming evils, and threatening the 
 property and the employments of the 
 people, and all their social and political 
 blessings, with severe and long-endur- 
 ing future inflictions. 
 
 And this experiment, with all its cost, 
 is to be tried, for what? Wliy, simply. 
 Sir, to enable us to try another "ex- 
 periment"; and that other experiment 
 is, to see whether an exclusive specie 
 currency may not be better than a cur- 
 rency partly specie and partly bank 
 paper! The object which it is hoped 
 we may effect, by patiently treading 
 this path of endurance, is to banish all 
 bank paper, of all kinds, aud to have 
 coined money, and coined money only, 
 as the actual currency of the country ! 
 
 Now, Sir, I altogether deny that such 
 an object is at all desirable, even if it 
 could be attained. I know, indeed, that 
 all paper ought to circulate on a specie 
 basis; that all bank-notes, to be safe, 
 must be convertible into gold and silver 
 at the wiU of the holder; and I admit, 
 too, that the issuing of very small notes 
 by many of the State banks has too 
 much reduced the amount of specie 
 actually circulating. It may be remem- 
 bered that I called the attention of Con- 
 gress to this subject in 1832, and that 
 the hill which then passed both houses 
 for renewing the bank charter contained 
 a provision designed to produce some 
 restraint on the circulation of very small 
 
 notes. I admit there are conveniences 
 in making small payments in specie; 
 and I have always, not only admitted, 
 but contended, that, if all issues of bank- 
 notes under five dollars were discontin- 
 ued, much more specie would be retained 
 in the countjy, and in the circulation; 
 and that great security would result from 
 this. But we are now debating about an 
 exclusive specie currency; and I deny 
 that an exclusive specie currency is the 
 best currency for any highly commercial 
 country; and I deny, especially, that 
 such a currency would be best suited to 
 the condition and circumstances of the 
 United States. With the enlightened 
 writers and practical statesmen of all 
 commercial communities in modem 
 times, I have supposed it to be admit- 
 ted that a well regulated, properly re- 
 strained, safely limited paper currency, 
 circulating on an adequate specie basis, 
 was a thing to be desired, a political 
 public advantage to be obtained, if it 
 might be obtained ; and, more espe- 
 cially, I have supposed that in a new 
 country, with resources not yet half 
 developed, with a rapidly increasing 
 population and a constant demand for 
 more and more capital, — that is to say, 
 in just such a country as the United 
 States are, I have supposed that it was 
 admitted that there are particular and 
 extraordinary advantages in a safe and 
 well regulated paper currency; because 
 in such a country well regulated bank 
 paper not only supplies a convenient 
 medium of payments and of exchange, 
 but also, by the expansion of that me- 
 dium in a reasonable and safe degree. 
 the amount of circulation is kept more 
 nearly commensurate with the constant- 
 ly increasing amount of property; and 
 an extended capital, in the shape of 
 credit, comes to the aid of the enter- 
 prising and the industrious. It is pre- 
 cisely on this credit, created by reason- 
 able expansion of the currency in a new 
 country, that men of small capital carry 
 on their business. It is exactly by 
 means of this, that industry and enter- 
 prise are stimulated. If we were driven 
 back to an exclusively metallic curren- 
 c}', the necessary and inevitable conse- 
 
864 
 
 A REDEEMABLE PAPER CURRENCT. 
 
 quence would be, that all trade would 
 fall into the hands of large capitalists. 
 This is so plain, that no man of reflec- 
 tion can doubt it. I know not, there- 
 fore, in what words to express my as- 
 tonishment, when I hear it said that the 
 f ■? esent measures of government are in- 
 tended for the good of the many instead 
 of the few, for the benefit of the poor, 
 and against the rich; and when I hear 
 it proposed, at the same moment, to do 
 away with the whole system of credit, 
 and place all trade and commerce, there- 
 fore, in the hands of those who have ade- 
 quate capital to carry them on without 
 the use of any credit at all. This, Sir, 
 would be dividing society, by a precise, 
 distinct, and well-defined line, into two 
 classes; first, the small class, who have 
 competent capital for trade, when credit 
 is out of the question; and, secondly, 
 the vastly numerous class of those whose 
 living must become, in such a state of 
 things, a mere manual occupation, with- 
 out the iise of capital or of any substi- 
 tute for it. 
 
 Now, Sir, it is the effect of a well- 
 regulated system of paper credit to break 
 in upon this line thus dividing the many 
 from the few, and to enable more or less 
 of the more numerous class to pass over 
 it, and to participate in the profits of 
 capital by means of a safe and conven- 
 ient substitute for capital; and thus to 
 diffuse far more widely the general earn- 
 ings, and therefore the general prosper- 
 ity and happiness, of society. Every 
 man of observation must have witnessed, 
 in this country, that men of heavy capi- 
 tal have constantly c»mj>hiined of bank 
 circulation, and a consequent credit sj's- 
 tem, as injurious to the rights of capital. 
 They undoubtedly foel its effects. AH 
 that is gained by the use of credit is 
 just so much subtracted from the amount 
 of their own accumulations, and so much 
 the more ha.s gone to tlie benefit of those 
 who bestow their own labor and indus- 
 tiy on cajMtal in small amounts. To the 
 great niajitrity, tiiis has buen of incal- 
 culable benefit in the United States; and 
 thi-refori', .Sir, whoever attempts the en- 
 tire overthrow of the system of bank 
 credit aims a deadly blow at the interest 
 
 of that great and ind.istrious class, who, 
 having some capital, cannot, neverthe 
 less, transact business without soma 
 credit. He can mean nothing else, if 
 he have any intelligible meaning at all, 
 than to turn all such persons over to the 
 long list of mere manual laborers. \\'hat 
 else can they do, with not enoigh of 
 absolute capital, and with no credit? 
 This, Sir, this is the true tendency and 
 the unavoidable result of these measures, 
 which have been undertaken with the 
 patriotic object of assisting the poor 
 against the rich ! 
 
 I am well aware that bank credit may 
 be abused. I know that there is another 
 extreme, exactly the opposite of that of 
 which I have now been speaking, and no 
 less sedulously to be avoided. I know 
 that the issue of bank paper may be- 
 come excessive; that depreciation will 
 then follow ; and that the evils, the 
 losses, and the frauds consequent on a 
 disordered currency fall on tlie rich and 
 the poor together, but with especial 
 weight of ruin on the poor. I know 
 that the sy.stem of bank credit must al- 
 ways rest on a specie basis, and that it 
 constantly needs to be strictly guarded 
 and properly restrained; and it may be 
 so guarded and restrained. We need 
 not give uji tlie good which belongs to 
 it, through fear of the evils which may 
 follow from its abuse. We have the 
 power to take security against these evils. 
 It is our business, as statesmen, to adopt 
 that security ; it is our business not to 
 prostrate, or attempt to prostrate, the 
 system, but to use those means of pre- 
 caution, restraint, and correction which 
 experience has sanctioned, and which 
 are ready at our hands. 
 
 It would be to our everlasting re- 
 proach, it would be placing us below the 
 general level of the intelligence of civil- 
 ized states, to admit that we cannot 
 contrive means to enjoy the benefits of 
 bank circulation, and of avoiding, at 
 the same time, its dangers. Indeed, Sir, 
 no contrivance is necessary. It is con- 
 trivance, and the love of contrivance, 
 tliat sj)oil all. We are de.stroying our- 
 selves by a remedy wliich no evil called 
 for. We are ruining perfect health by 
 
A REDEEMABLE PAPER CURRENCY. 
 
 365 
 
 nostrums and quackery. We have lived 
 hitherto under a well constructed, prac- 
 tical, and beneficial system; a system 
 not surpassed by any in the world; and 
 it seems to me to be presuming largely, 
 largely indeed, on the credulity and self- 
 denial of the people, to rush with such 
 Budden and impetuous haste into new 
 schemes and new theories, to overturn 
 and annihilate all that we have so long 
 found useful. 
 
 Our system has hitherto been one in 
 •which paper has been circulating on the 
 strength of a specie basis; that is to say, 
 when every bank-note was convertible 
 into specie at the will of the holder. 
 This has been our guard against excess. 
 Wliile banks are bound to redeem their 
 bills by paying gold and silver on de- 
 mand, and are at all times able to do 
 this, the currency is safe and conven- 
 ient. Such a currency is not paper 
 money, in its odious sense. It is not 
 like the Continental paper of Revolu- 
 tionary times ; it is not like the worth- 
 less bills of banks which have suspended 
 specie payments. On the contrary, it 
 is the representative of gold and silver, 
 and convertible into gold and silver 
 on demand, and therefore answers the 
 purposes of gold and silver ; and so long 
 as its credit is in this way sustained, it 
 is the cheapest, the best, and the most 
 convenient circulating medium. I have 
 already endeavored to warn the countiy 
 against irredeemable paper; against the 
 paper of banks which do not pay specie 
 for their own notes; against that miser- 
 able, abominable, and fraudulent policy, 
 which attempts to give value to any 
 paper, of any bank, one single moment 
 longer than such paper is redeemable on 
 demand in gold and silver. I wish most 
 solemnly and earnestly to repeat that 
 warning. I see danger of that state of 
 things ahead. I see imminent danger 
 that a portion of the State banks will 
 stop specie payments. The late measure 
 of the Secretary, and the infatuation with 
 which it seems to be supported, tend di- 
 rectly and strongly to that result. Un- 
 der pretence, then, of a design to return 
 to a currency which shall be all specie, 
 we are likely to have a currency in which 
 
 there shall be no specie at all. We are 
 in danger of being overwhelmed with 
 irredeemable pajier, mere paper, repre- 
 senting not gold nor silver; no, Sir, rep- 
 resenting nothing but broken promise.s, 
 bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheat- 
 ed creditors, and a ruined people. This, 
 I fear. Sir, may be the consequence, al- 
 ready alarmingly near, of this attempt, 
 unwise if it be real, and grossly fraudu' 
 lent if it be only pretended, of establish' 
 ing an exclusively hard-money currency. 
 But, Sir, if this shock could be avoid- 
 ed, and if we could reach the object ot 
 an exclusive metallic circulation, we 
 should find in that very success serious 
 and insurmountable inconveniences. We 
 require neither irredeemable paper, nor 
 yet exclusively hard money. We require 
 a mixed system. We require specie, and 
 we require, too, good bank paper, found- 
 ed on specie, representing specie, and 
 convertible into specie on demand. We 
 require, in short, just such a currency as 
 we have long enjoyed, and the advan- 
 tages of which we seem now, with un- 
 accountable rashness, about to throv? 
 away. 
 
 I avow myself, therefore, decidedly 
 against the object of a return to an ex- 
 clusive specie currency. I find gi'eat 
 difficulty, I confess, in believing any man 
 serious in avowing such an object. It 
 seems to me rather a subject for ridi- 
 cule, at this age of the world, than for 
 sober argument. But if it be true that 
 any are serious for the return of the gold 
 and silver age, I am seriously against it. 
 Let us. Sir, anticipate, in imagina- 
 tion, the accomplishment of this grand 
 experiment. Let us suppose that, at 
 this moment, all bank paper were out of 
 existence, and the country full of specie 
 Where, Sir, should we put it, and what 
 should we do with it ? Should we ship 
 it, by cargoes, every day, from New 
 York to New Orleans, and from New 
 Orleans back to New York ? Should we 
 encumber the turnpikes, the railroads, 
 and the steamboats with it, whenever 
 purchases and sales were to be made in 
 one place of articles to be transported to 
 another? The carriage of the money 
 would, in some cases, cost half as much 
 
366 
 
 A KEDEEMABLE PAPER CURRENCY. 
 
 as the carriage of the goods. Sir, the 
 very first day, under such a state of 
 things, we should set ourselves about 
 the creation of banks. This would im- 
 mediately become necessary and una- 
 voidable. We may assure ourselves, 
 therefore, without danger of mistake, 
 that the idea of an exclusively metallic 
 currency is totally incompatible, in the 
 existing state of the world, with an ac- 
 tive and extensive commerce. It is in- 
 consistent, too, with the greatest good 
 of the greatest number; and therefore I 
 oppose it. 
 
 But, Sir, how are we to get through 
 the first experiment, so as to be able to 
 try that which is to be final and ulti- 
 mate, that is to say, how are we to get 
 rid of tlie State banks ? How is this to 
 be accomplished ? Of the Bank of the 
 United States, indeed, we may free our- 
 selves readily; but how are we to anni- 
 hilate the State banks ? We did not 
 speak them into being; we cannot speak 
 them out of being. They did not origi- 
 nate in any exercise of our power ; nor 
 do they owe their continuance to our in- 
 dulgence. They are responsible to the 
 States ; to us they are irresponsible. We 
 'jannot act upon them; we can only act 
 with them; and the expectation, as it 
 would appear, is, that, by zealously co- 
 operating with the government in cariy- 
 ing into operation its new theory, they 
 may disprove the necessity of their own 
 existence, and fairl}' work themselves 
 out of the world ! Sir, I ask once more, 
 Is a great and intelligent community to 
 endure patiently all sorts of suffering for 
 fantasies like these ? IIow charmingly 
 practicable, how delightfully probable, 
 all this looks! 
 
 I find it impossible, Mr. President, to 
 believe that the removal of the deposits 
 
 arose in any such purpose as is now 
 avowed. I believe all this to be an 
 after-thought. The removal was re- 
 solved on as a strong measure against 
 the bank; and now that it has been 
 attended with consequences not at aU 
 apprehended from it, instead of being 
 promptly retracted, as it should have 
 been, it is to be justified on the ground 
 of a grand experiment, above the reach 
 of common sagacitj', and dropped down, 
 as it were, from the clouds, " to witch 
 the world with noble policy." It is 
 not credible, not possible, Sir, that, six 
 months ago, the administration sud- 
 denly started off to astonish mankind 
 with its. new inventions in politics, aud 
 that it then began its magnificent project 
 by removing the deposits as its first op- 
 eration. Ko, Sir, no such thing. The 
 removal of the deposits was a blow at 
 the bank, and nothing more; and if it 
 had succeeded, we should have heard 
 nothing of any project for the final put- 
 ting down of all State banks. 2so, Sir, 
 not one word. AVe should have heard, 
 on the contrary, only of their usefulness, 
 their excellence, and their exact adapta- 
 tion to the uses and necessities of this 
 government. But the experiment of 
 making successful use of State banks 
 having failed, completely failed, in this 
 the very first endeavor ; the State banks 
 having already proved themselves not 
 able to fill the place and perform the 
 duties of a national bank, although 
 highly useful in their appropriate sphere ; 
 and the disastrous consequences of the 
 measures of government coming thick 
 and fast upon us, the professed object of 
 the whole movement is at once changed, 
 and the cry now is, Down with all the 
 State banks ! Down with all the State 
 banks ! and let us return to our embraces 
 of solid gold aud solid silver! 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 k SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON TIIE Tru 
 OF MAY, 1834, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PRESIDENT'S PROTEST AGAINST 
 THE RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF THE 28tii OF MARCH. 
 
 Mr. President, — I feel the magni- 
 tude of this question. We are coming to a 
 vote which cannot fail to produce impor- 
 tant effects ou the character of the Senate, 
 and the character of the government. 
 
 Unhappily, Sir, the Senate finds itself 
 involved in a controversy with the Pres- 
 ident of the United States ; a man who 
 has rendered most distinguished services 
 to his country, who has hitherto pos- 
 sessed a degree of x^opular favor per- 
 haps never exceeded, and whose honesty 
 of motive and integrity of purpose are 
 still admitted by those who maintain 
 that his administration has fallen into 
 lamentable errors. 
 
 On some of the interesting questions in 
 regard to which the President and Senate 
 hold opposite opinions, the more popular 
 branch of tlie legislature concurs with 
 the executive. It is not to be concealed 
 that the Senate is engaged against im- 
 posing odds. It can sustain itself only 
 by its own prudence and the justice of 
 its cause. It has no patronage by which 
 to secm-e friends ; it can raise up no ad- 
 vocates through the dispensation of fa- 
 vors, for it has no favors to dispense. 
 It^ very constitution, as a body whose 
 members are elected for a long term, is 
 capable of being rendered obnoxious, 
 and is daily made the subject of oppro- 
 brious remark. It is already denounced 
 as independent of the people, and aris- 
 tocratic. Nor is it, like the other house, 
 powerful in its numbers ; not being, like 
 that, so large as that its members come 
 •onstantly in dii'ect and extensive con- 
 
 tact with the wliole people. Ijnder 
 these disadvantages. Sir, which, we may 
 be assured, will be pressed and urged to 
 the utmost length, there is but one course 
 for us. The Senate must stand on its 
 rendered reasons. It must put forth the 
 grounds of its proceedings, and it must 
 then rely ou the intelligence and patri- 
 otism of the people to carry it through 
 the contest. 
 
 As an individual member of the Sen- 
 ate, it gives me great pain to be engaged 
 in such a conflict with the executive 
 government. The occurrences of the 
 last session are fresh in the recollection 
 of all of us; and having felt it to be 
 my duty, at that time, to give my cor- 
 dial support to highly important meas- 
 ui'es of the administration, I ardently 
 hoped that nothing might occiu" to place 
 me afterwards in an attitude of opposi- 
 tion. In all respects, and in every way, 
 it would have been far more agreeable 
 to me to find nothing in the measures of 
 the executive government which I coidd 
 not cheerfully support. The present 
 occasion of difference has not been 
 sought or made by me. It is throsl 
 upon me, in opposition to strong opin- 
 ions and wishes, on my part not con- 
 cealed. The interference with the public 
 deposits dispelled all hope of continued 
 concurrence with the administration, 
 and was a measure so uncalled for, so 
 unnecessaiy, and, in my judgment, so 
 illegal and indefensible, that, with what- 
 ever reluctance it might be opposed by 
 me, opposition was unavoidable. 
 
H68 
 
 THE PRESIDEXTLVL PROTEST. 
 
 The paper before us has grown out of 
 this interference. It is a paper %Yhich 
 cannot be treated with indifference. 
 The doctrines which it advances, the 
 circumstances which have attended its 
 transmission to the Senate, and the 
 manner in which the Senate may now 
 dispose of it, will fonn a memorable era 
 in the history of the government. We 
 are either to enter it on our journals, 
 concur in its sentiments, and submit to 
 its rebuke, or we must answer it, with 
 the respect due to the chief magistrate, 
 but with such animadversion on its doc- 
 trines as they desen-e, and with the 
 firmness imposed upon us by our public 
 duties. 
 
 I shall proceed, then. Sir, to consider 
 the circumstances which gave rise to 
 this Protest; to examine the principles 
 which it attempts to establish; and to 
 compare those principles with the Con- 
 stitution and the laws. 
 
 On the 28th day of March, the Senate 
 adopted a resolution declaring that, " in 
 the late executive proceedings in relation 
 to the public revenue, the President had 
 assumed a power not conferred by the 
 Constitution and laws, but in deroga- 
 tion of both." In that resolution I con- 
 curred. 
 
 It is not a direct question, now again 
 before us, whether the President really 
 had assumed such illegal power; that 
 point is decided, so far as the Senate 
 ever can decide it. But the Protest de- 
 nies that, supposing the President to 
 have assumed such illegal power, the 
 Senate could properly pass the resolu- 
 tion; or, what is the same thing, it de- 
 nies that the Senate could, in this way, 
 express any opinion about it. It denies 
 that the Senate has any right, by reso- 
 lution, in this or any other case, to ex- 
 press disapprobation of the President's 
 conduct, let that conduct be what it may ; 
 ^nd this, one of the leading doctrines of 
 the Protest, I propose to consider. But 
 as I concurred in the resolution of the 
 28th of March, and did not trouble the 
 Senate, at that time, with any statement 
 of my own reasons, I will avail myself 
 of this opportunity to explain, shortly, 
 what thoso rejisons were. 
 
 In the first place, then, I have to say, 
 that I did not vote for the resolution on 
 the mere gromid of the removal of Mr 
 Duane from the office of Secretary oi 
 the Treasury. Although I disapprove 
 of the removal altogether, yet the power 
 of removal does exist in the President, 
 according to the established cornstruction 
 of the Constitution; and therefore, al- 
 though in a particular case it may be 
 abused, and, in my opinion, was abused 
 in this case, yet its exercise cannot be 
 justly said to be an assumption or usur- 
 pation. We must all agree that ]Mr. 
 Duane is out of office. He has, there- 
 fore, been removed by a power con- 
 stitutionally competent to remove him, 
 whatever may be thought of the exercise 
 of that power under the circumstances 
 of the case. 
 
 If, then, the act of removing the Sec- 
 retary be not the assumption of power 
 which the resolution declares, in what is 
 that assumption found? Before giving 
 a precise answer to this inquiry, allow 
 me to recur to some of the principal 
 previous events. 
 
 At the end of the last session of Con- 
 gress, the public moneys of the United 
 States were still in their proper place. 
 That place was fixed by the law of the 
 land, and no power of change was con- 
 ferred on any other human being than 
 the Secretary- of the Treasury. On him 
 the power of change was conferred, to 
 be exercised by himself, if emergency 
 should arise, and to be exercised for 
 reasons which he was bound to lay be- 
 fore Congress. Xo other officer of the 
 government had the slightest pretence 
 of authority to lay his hand on these 
 moneys for the purpose of changing the 
 place of their custody. All the other 
 heads of departments together could not 
 touch them. The President could not 
 touch them. The power of change was 
 a trust confided to the discretion of the 
 Secretary, and to his discretion alone. 
 The President hatl no more authority to 
 take upon himself this duty, thus as- 
 signed expressly by law to the Secretary, 
 than he had to make the annual report 
 to Congress, or the annual conunercia) 
 statements, or to perform any other ser- 
 
THE TKESIDENTLVL PROTEST. 
 
 369 
 
 vice which the law specially requires of 
 the Secretary. He might just as well 
 sign the warrants for moneys, in tlie or- 
 dinary daily disbursements of govern- 
 ment, instead of the Secretary. The 
 statute had assigned the especial duty of 
 removing the deposits, if removed at 
 all, to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 and to him alone. The consideration 
 of the propriety or necessity of removal 
 nciist be the consideration of the Secre- 
 tary; the decision to remove, his decis- 
 ion ; and the act of removal, his act. 
 
 Kow, Sir, on the 18th day of Septem- 
 ber last, a resolution was taken to remove 
 these deposits from their legislative, that 
 is to say, their legal custody. Whose 
 resolution was this ? On the 1st of Octo- 
 ber, they were removed. By whose power- 
 was this done f The papers necessary 
 to accomplish the removal (that is, the 
 orders and drafts) are, it is true, signed 
 by the Secretary. The President's name 
 is not subscribed to them ; nor does the 
 Secretary, in any of them, recite or de- 
 clare that he does the act by direction 
 of the President, or on the President's 
 responsibility. In form, the whole pro- 
 ceeding is the proceeding of the Secre- 
 tary, and, as such, had the legal effect. 
 The deposits were removed. But whose 
 act was it, in truth and reality? Whose 
 will accomplished it? On whose re- 
 sponsibility was it adopted? 
 
 These questions are all explicitly an- 
 swered by the President himself, in the 
 paper, under his own hand, read to the 
 Cabinet on the 18th of September, and 
 published by his authority. In this pa- 
 per the President declares, in so many 
 words, that he begs his Cabinet to con- 
 sider the proposed measure as his own; 
 that its responsibility has been assmned 
 by him; and that he names the first day 
 of October as a period proper for its 
 execution. 
 
 Now, Sir, it is precisely this which I 
 deem an assumption of power not con- 
 ferred by the Constitution and laws. 
 I think the law did not give this author- 
 ity to the President, nor impose on him 
 the responsibility of its exercise. It is 
 evident that, in this removal, the Sec- 
 retary was in reality nothing but the 
 
 scribe; he was the pen in the President's 
 hand, and no more. Notliing depended 
 on his discretion, his judgment, or his 
 responsibility. The removal, indeed, 
 has been admitted and defended in the 
 Senate, as the direct act of the Presi- 
 dent himself. This, Sir, is what I call 
 assumption of power. If the President 
 had issued an order for the removal of 
 the dejwsits in his own name, and un- 
 der his own hand, it would have been 
 an illegal order, and the bank would 
 not have been at liberty to obey it. For 
 the same reason, if the Secretary's order 
 had recited tiiat it was issued by the 
 President's direction, and on the Presi- 
 dent's autliority, it would have shown 
 on its face that it was illegal and in- 
 valid. Xo one can doubt that. The 
 act of removal, to be lawfid, must be 
 the bond Jide act of the Secretary; his 
 judgment, the result of his deliberations, 
 the volition of his mind. All are able 
 to see the difference between the power 
 to remove the Secretary from office, and 
 the power to control him, in all or any 
 of his duties, while in office. The law 
 charges the officer, whoever he may be, 
 with the performance of certain duties. 
 The President, with the consent of the 
 Senate, appoints an individual to be 
 such officer; and this individual he may 
 remove, if he so please; out, until re- 
 moved, he is the officer, and remains 
 charged with the duties of his station, 
 duties which nobody else can perform, 
 and for the neglect or violation of which 
 he is liable to be impeached. 
 
 The distinction is visible and broad 
 between the power of removal and the 
 power to control an officer not removed. 
 The President, it is true, may termi- 
 nate his political life; but he cannot 
 control his powers and functions, and act 
 upon him as a mere machine, while he 
 is allowed to live. The power of control 
 and direction, nowhere given, certainly, 
 by any express provision of the Consti- 
 tution or laws, is derived, by those who 
 maintain it, from the right of removal; 
 that is to say, it is a constructive power; 
 it has no express warrant in the Consti- 
 tution. A very important power, then, 
 is raised by construction in the first 
 24 
 
370 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 place; and being thus raised, it becomes 
 a fountain out of which other important 
 powers, raised also by construction, are 
 to be supplied. There is no little dan- 
 ger that such a mode of reasoning may 
 he carried loo far. It cannot be main- 
 tained that the power of direct control 
 necessarily flows from the power of re- 
 moval. Suppose it had been decided in 
 1789, when the question was debated, 
 that the President does not possess the 
 power of removal; will it be contended, 
 that, in that case, his right of interfer- 
 ence with the acts and duties of execu- 
 tive officers would be less than it now 
 is? The reason of the thing would 
 seem to be the other way. If the Presi- 
 dent may remove an incumbent when 
 he becomes satisfied of his unfaithful- 
 ness and incapacity, there would appear 
 to be less necessity to give him also a 
 right of control, than there would be if 
 he could not remove him. 
 
 We may try this question by suppos- 
 ing it to arise in a judicial proceeding. 
 If the Secretary of the Treasury were 
 impeached for removing the deposits, 
 could he justify himself by saying that 
 he did it by the President's direction? 
 If he could, then no executive officer 
 could ever be impeached who obeys the 
 President; and the whole notion of mak- 
 ing such officers impeachable at all 
 would be farcical. If he could not so 
 justify himself, (and all will allow he 
 could not.) the reason can only be that 
 the act of removal is his ov\^l act; the 
 power, a power confided to him, for the 
 just exercise of which the law looks to 
 his discretion, his honesty, and his di- 
 rect responsibility. 
 
 Now, Sir, the President wishes the 
 world to understand that he himself 
 decided on the question of the removal 
 of the deposits ; that he took the whole 
 responsibility of the measure upon him- 
 self; that he wished it to be considered 
 his oivti act; that he not only himself 
 decided that the thing should be done, 
 but rognliited its details also, and named 
 the day for carrying it into effect. 
 
 I have always entertained a very erro- 
 neous view of the partition of powers, 
 and of the true nature of official respon- 
 
 sibility under our Constitution, if thii 
 be not a plain case of the assumption 
 of power. 
 
 The legislature had fixed a place, by 
 law, for the keeping of the public 
 money. They had, at the same time 
 and by the same law, created and con- 
 ferred a power of removal, to be exer- 
 cised contingently. This power they 
 had vested in the Secretary, by express 
 words. The law did not say that the 
 deposits should be made in the bank, 
 unless the President should ordei other- 
 wise; but it did say that they should 
 be made there, imless the Secretary of 
 the Treasury should order otherwise. I 
 put it to the plain sense and common 
 candor of all men, whether the dis- 
 cretion thus to be exercised over the 
 subject was not the Secretary's own 
 personal discretion; and whether, there- 
 fore, the interposition of the authority 
 of another, acting directly and conclu- 
 sively on the subject, deciding the whole 
 question, even in its particulars and de- 
 tails, be not an assumption of power? 
 
 The Senate regarded this interposition 
 as an encroachment by the executive 
 on other branches of the government; 
 as an interference with the legislative 
 disposition of the public treasure. It 
 was strongly and forcibly urged, yester- 
 day, by the honorable member from 
 South Carolina, that the true and only 
 mode of preserving any balance of 
 power, in mixed governments, is to 
 keep an exact balance. This is very 
 true, and to this end encroachment must 
 be resisted at the first step. The ques- 
 tion is, therefore, whether, upon the 
 true principles of the Constitution, this 
 exercise of power by the President can 
 be justified. Wiiether the consequen- 
 ces be prejudicial or not, if there be a'l 
 illegal exercise of power, it is to bs 
 resisted in the proper manner. Even if 
 no hann or inconvenience result from 
 transgressing the boundary', the intru- 
 sion is not to be suffered to pass un- 
 noticed. Every encroachment, great or 
 small, is important enough to awaken 
 the attention of those who are intrusted 
 with the preservation of a constitutional 
 government. We are not to wait till 
 
THE PRESIDENTL\.L PROTEST. 
 
 371 
 
 great public mischiefs conae, till the gov- 
 enmient is overthrown, or liberty itself 
 put iuto extreme jeopardy. We should 
 not be worthy sous of our fathers were 
 we so to regard great questions affecting 
 the general freedom. Those fathers 
 accomplished the Revolution on a strict 
 question of principle. The Parliament 
 of Great Britain assoited a right to tax 
 the Colouies in all cases whatsoever; 
 and it was precisely on this question 
 that they made the Revolution turn. 
 The amount of taxation was trilling, 
 but the claim itself was inconsistent 
 with liberty; and that was, in tlieir eyes, 
 enough. It was against the recital of 
 an act of Parliament, rather than 
 against any suifering under its enact- 
 ments, that they took up arms. They 
 went to war against a preamble. They 
 fought seven years against a declaration. 
 They pom-ed out their treasures and their 
 blood like water, in a contest against an 
 assertion which those less sagacious and 
 not so well schooled in the principles of 
 civil liberty would have regarded as 
 barren phraseology, or mere parade of 
 words. They saw in the claim of the 
 British Parliament a seminal principle 
 of mischief , the germ of unjust power; 
 they detected it, dragged it forth from 
 underneath its plausible disguises, struck 
 at it ; nor did it elude either their steady 
 eye or their well-directed blow till they 
 had extirpated and destroyed it, to the 
 smallest fibre. On this question of 
 principle, while actual suffering was 
 yet afar off, they raised their flag against 
 a power, to which, for purposes of for- 
 eign conquest and subjugation, Rome, 
 in the height of her glory, is not to be 
 compared; a power which has dotted 
 over the surface of the whole globe 
 with ber possessions and military posts, 
 whose morning drum-beat, following 
 the sun, and keeping company with the 
 hours, circles the earth with one contin- 
 uous and unbroken strain of the martial 
 airs of England. 
 
 The necessity of holding strictly to 
 the principle upon which free govern- 
 ments are constructed, and to those pre- 
 cise lines which fix the partitions of 
 power between different branches, is as 
 
 plain, if not as cogent, as tliat of resist- 
 ing, as our fathers did, the strid&s of 
 the parent country against the rights 
 of the Colonies; because, whether the 
 power which exceeds its just limits be 
 foreign or domestic, whether it be the 
 encroachment of all branches on the 
 rights of the people, or that of one 
 branch on tlie rights of others, in either 
 case the balanced and well-adjusted 
 machinery of free government is dis- 
 turbed, and, if the derangement go on, 
 the whole system must fall. 
 
 But the case before us is not a case of 
 merely tlieoretic infringement; nor is it 
 one of trifling importance. Far other- 
 wise. It respects one of the highest and 
 most important of all the powers of gov- 
 ernment; that is to say, the custody and 
 control of the public money. The act 
 of removing the deposits, which I now 
 consider as the President's act, and 
 which his friends on this floor defend as 
 his act, took the national purse from 
 beneath the security and guardiansliip 
 of the law, and disposed of its contents, 
 in parcels, m such places of deposit as 
 he chose to select. At this very mo- 
 ment, every dollar of the public treasure 
 is subject, so far as respects its custody 
 and safe-keeping, to his unlimited con- 
 trol. We know not where it is to-day; 
 still less do we know where it may be 
 to-morrow. 
 
 But, Mr. President, this is not all. 
 There is another part of the case, which 
 has not been so much discussed, but 
 which appears to me to be still more in- 
 defensible in its character. It is some- 
 thing which may well teach us the 
 tendency of power to move foi"\vard 
 with accelerated pace, if it be allowed 
 to take the first step. The Bank of the 
 United States, in addition to the ser- 
 vices rendered to the treasury, gave for 
 its charter, and for the use of the public 
 deposits, a bonus or outright svma of one 
 million and a half of dollars. This 
 sum was paid by the bank into the 
 treasury soon after the commencement 
 of its charter. In the act which passed 
 both liouses for renewing the charter, 
 in 1832, it was provided that the bank, 
 for the same consideration, should pay 
 
372 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 two hundred thousand dollars a year 
 during the period for ■which it vras pro- 
 posed to renew it. A similar provision 
 is in the bill which I asked leave to in- 
 troduce some weeks ago. ^ Now, Sir, this 
 shows that tho custody of the deposits 
 is a benefit for which a bank may well 
 afford to pay a large annual sum. The 
 banks which now hold the deposits pay 
 nothing to the public; they give no 
 bonus, they pay no annuity. But this 
 loss of so much money is not the worst 
 part of the case, nor that which ought 
 most to alarm us. Although they pay 
 nothing to the public, they do pay, 
 nevertheless, such sums, and for such 
 uses, as may be agreed upon between 
 themselves and the executive govern- 
 ment. We are officially iivformed that 
 an officer is appointed by the Secretary 
 of the Treasury to inspect or superin- 
 tend these selected banks; and this 
 officer is compensated by a salary fixed 
 by the executive, agreed to by the 
 banks, and paid by them. I ask, Sir, 
 if there can be a more iiTegular or 
 a more illegal transaction than this? 
 "Whose money is it out of which this 
 salary is paid? Is it not money justly 
 due to the United States, and paid, be- 
 cause it is so due, for the advantage of 
 holding the deposits? If a dollar is re- 
 ceived on that account, is not its only 
 true destination into the general treas- 
 uiy of the government? And who has 
 authority, without law, to create an 
 office, to fix a salary, and to pay that 
 salary out of this money? Here is an 
 inspector or supervisor of the deposit 
 banks. But what law has provided for 
 such an officer? What commission has 
 he received? "VMio concurred in his 
 appointment? What oath does he 
 take? How is he to be punished or 
 impeached if he colludes with any of 
 these banks to embezzle the public 
 money or defraud the government? 
 The value of the use of this public 
 money to the deposit banks is probably 
 two hundred thousand dollars a year; 
 or, if less than that, it is yet, certainly, 
 a very gi-eat sum. May the President 
 apjioint whatever officers he pleases, 
 with wliatever duties he pleases, and 
 
 pay them as much as he pleases, out oi 
 the moneys thus paid by the banks, foi 
 the sake of having the deposits? 
 
 Mr. President, the executive claim oi 
 power is exactly this, that the President 
 may keep the money of the public in 
 whatever banks he chooses, on whatever 
 terms he chooses, and apply the sums 
 which these banks are willing to pay 
 for its use to whatever purposes ha 
 chooses. These sums are not to come 
 into the general treasury. They are to 
 be appropriated before they get there; 
 they are never to be brought under the 
 control of Congiess; they are to be paid 
 to officers and agents not known to the 
 law, not nominated to the Senate, and 
 responsible to nobody but the executive 
 itself. I ask gentlemen if all this be 
 lawful. Are they prepared to defend 
 it? Will they stand up and justify it? 
 In my opinion, Sir, it is a clear and 
 most dangerous assumption of power. 
 It is the creation of office without law ; 
 the appointment to office without con- 
 sulting the Senate; the establishment of 
 a salary without law; and the iiaynient 
 of that salary out of a fund which it- 
 self is derived from the use of the public 
 treasures. This, Sir, is my other reason 
 for concurring in the vote of the 2Sth 
 of !March ; and on these gi'ounds I leave 
 the in-opriety of that vote, so far as I 
 am concerned with it, to be judged of 
 by the country. 
 
 But, Sir, the President denies the 
 power of the Senate to j^ass any such 
 resolution, on any ground whatever. 
 Suppose the declaration contained in 
 the resolution to be true; suppose the 
 President had, in fact, assumed powers 
 not granted to him; does the Senate 
 possess the right to declare its opinion, 
 affirming this fact, or does it not? I 
 maintain that the Senate do<^s possess 
 such a power; the President denies it. 
 
 Mr. President, we need not look far, 
 nor search deep, for the foundation of 
 this right in the Senate. It is close at 
 hand, and clearly visible. In the iirst 
 place, it is the right of self-defence. In 
 the second place, it is a right founded 
 on the duty of representative bodies, in 
 a free government, to defend the pul>lic 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 873 
 
 liberty against encroacliment. AVe must 
 presume that the Senate honestly enter- 
 tained tlie opinion expressed in the res- 
 olution of the 28th of March; and, 
 entertaniing that opinion, its right to 
 express it is but the necessary conse- 
 quence of its right to defend its own 
 constitutional authority, as one branch of 
 the government. This is its clear right, 
 and this, too, is its imperative duty. 
 
 If one or both the other branches 
 of the government happen to do that 
 which appears to us inconsistent with 
 the constitutional rights of the Senate, 
 will any one say that the Senate is yet 
 bound to be passive, and to be silent? 
 to do nothing, and to say nothing? Or, 
 if one branch appears to encroach on 
 the rights of the other two, have these 
 two no power of remonstrance, com- 
 plaint, or resistance? Sir, the question 
 may be put in a still more striking form. 
 Has the Senate a right to have an opinion 
 in a case of this kind? If it may have 
 an opinion, how is that opinion to be 
 ascertained but by resolution and vote? 
 The objection must go the whole length ; 
 it must maintain tliat the Senate has not 
 only no right to express opinions, but no 
 right to form opinions, on the conduct 
 of the executive government, though in 
 matters intimately aifecting the powers 
 and duties of the Senate itself. It is 
 not possible, Sir, that such a doctrine 
 can be maintained for a single moment. 
 All political bodies resist what they 
 deem encroachments by resolutions ex- 
 pressive of their sentiments, and their 
 purpose to resist such encroachments. 
 "When such a resolution is presented for 
 its consideration, the question is, whether 
 it be true ; not whether the body has au- 
 thority to pass it, admitting it to be true. 
 The Senate, like other public bodies, is 
 perfectly justifiable in defending, in this 
 mode, either its legislative or executive 
 authority. The usages of Parliament, 
 the i^ractice in our State legislatures and 
 assemblies, both before and since the 
 Revolution, and precedents in the Senate 
 itself, fully maintain this right. The 
 case of the Panama mission is in point. 
 In that case, Mr. Branch, from North 
 Carolina, introduced a resolution, which, 
 
 after reciting that the President, in his 
 annual message and in his connnunica- 
 tion to the Senate, had asserted that he 
 possessed an autliority to make certain 
 appointments, although the appointments 
 had not been made, went on to declare that 
 " a silent acquiescence on the part of this 
 body may, at some future time, be draicn 
 into dangerous precedent'^ ; and to re- 
 solve, therefore, that the President does 
 not possess the right or power said to be 
 claimed by him. This resolution was 
 discussed, and finally laid on the table. 
 But the question discussed was, whether 
 the resolution was correct, in fact and 
 principle; not whether the Senate had 
 any right to pass such resolution. So 
 far as I remember, no one pretended 
 that, if the President had exceeded his 
 authority, the Senate might not so de- 
 clare by resolution. Xo one ventured 
 to contend that, whether the rights of 
 the Senate were invaded or not, the Sen- 
 ate must hold its peace. 
 
 Tlie Protest labors strenuously to show 
 that the Senate adopted the resolution of 
 the 28th of March, under its judicial au- 
 thority. The reason of this attempt is 
 obvious enough. If the Senate, in its 
 judicial character, has been trying the 
 President, then lie has not had a regular 
 and formal trial; and, on that ground, 
 it is hoped the public sympathy may be 
 moved. But the Senate has acted not 
 in its judicial, but in its legislative 
 capacity. As a legislative body, it has 
 defended its own just authority, and 
 the authority of the other branch of the 
 legislature. Whatever attacks our own 
 rights and privileges, or whatever en- 
 croaclies on the jjower of both houses, 
 we may oppose and resist, by declara- 
 tion, resolution, or other similar pro- 
 ceedings. If we look to the books of 
 precedents, if we examine the journals 
 of legislative bodies, we find everywhere 
 instances of such proceedings. 
 
 It is to be observed, Sir, that the 
 Protest imposes silence on the House of 
 Ilepresentatives as well as on the Senate. 
 It declares that no power is conferred on 
 either branch of the legislature, to con- 
 sider or decide upon official acts of the 
 executive, for the purpose of cc isure, 
 
374 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 and without a view to legislation or im- 
 peachment. This, I think, Sir, is pretty 
 high-toned pretension. According to this 
 doctrine, neither house could assert its 
 own rights, however the executive might 
 assail them; neither house could point 
 out the danger to the people, however 
 fast executive encroachment might be 
 extending itself, or whatever danger it 
 might threaten to the public liberties. 
 If the two houses of Congress may not 
 express an opinion of executive con- 
 duct by resolution, there is the same 
 reason why they should not express it 
 in any other form, or by any other 
 mode of proceeding. Indeed, the Pro- 
 test limits both houses, expressly, to the 
 case of impeachment. If the House of 
 Representatives are not about to im- 
 peach the President, they have nothing 
 to say of his measures or of his conduct; 
 and unless the Senate are engaged in 
 trj-ing an impeachment, their mouths, 
 too, are stopped. It is the practice of 
 the President to send us an annual mes- 
 sage, in which he rehearses the general 
 proceedings of the executive for the 
 past year. This message we refer to 
 our committees for consideration. But, 
 according to the doctrine of the Protest, 
 they can express no opinion upon any 
 executive proceeding upon which it gives 
 information. Suppose tlie President had 
 told us, in his last annual message, what 
 he had previously told us in his cabinet 
 paper, that the removal of the deposits 
 ■was his act, done on his responsibility; 
 and that the Secretary of the Treasury 
 had exercised no discretion, formed no 
 judgment, presumed to have no opinion 
 ■whatever, on the subject. This part of 
 tlie message would have been referred to 
 the committee on finance ; but what 
 could they say? They think it shows a 
 plain violation of tlie Constitution and 
 the laws; but the President is not im- 
 peached ; therefore they can express no 
 censure. They think it a direct inva- 
 sion of legislative power, but they must 
 not say so. They may, indeed, com- 
 mend, if they can. The grateful busi- 
 ness of praise is lawful to them ; but if, 
 instead of commendation and applause, 
 they find cause for disapprobation, cen- 
 
 sure, or alarm, the Protest enjoins upon 
 them absolute silence. 
 
 Formerly, Sir, it was a practice for t.h* 
 President to meet both houses, at the 
 opening of the session, and deliver a 
 speech, as is still the usage of some of 
 the State legislatures. To this speech 
 there was an answer from each house, 
 and those answers expressed, freely, the 
 sentiments of the house upon all the 
 merits and faults of the administra- 
 tion. The discussion of the topics con- 
 tained in the speech, and the debate 
 on the answers, usually drew out the 
 whole force of parties, and lasted some- 
 times a week. President Washington's 
 conduct, in every year of his admin- 
 istration, was thus freely and publicly 
 canvassed. He did not complain of it; 
 he did not doubt that both houses had a 
 perfect right to comment, with the ut- 
 most latitude, consistent with decoi^xmi, 
 upon all his measures. Answers, or 
 amendments to answers, ■were not un- 
 frequently proposed, very hostile to his 
 own course of public policy, if not some- 
 times bordering on disrespect. And 
 ■when they did express respect and re- 
 gard, there were votes ready to be re- 
 corded against the expression of those 
 sentiments. To all this President Wash- 
 ington took no exception; for he ■well 
 knew that these, and similar proceed- 
 ings, belonged to the power of popular 
 bodies. But if the President were now 
 to meet us with a speech, and should in- 
 form us of measvu-es, adopted by him- 
 self in the recess, which should appear 
 to us the most j^lain, palj^able, and dan- 
 gerous violations of the Constitution, we 
 must, nevertheless, either keep respect- 
 ful silence, or fill our answer merely ■aitl) 
 courtly phrases of approbation. 
 
 Mr. President, I know not who wrote 
 this Protest, but I confess I am aston- 
 ished, truly astonished, as well at the 
 want of knowledge which it displays of 
 constitutional law, as at the high and 
 dangerous pretensions which it puts 
 forth. Neither branch of the legisla- 
 ture can express censure upon the Presi- 
 dent's conduct! Suppose, Sir, that we 
 shoidd see him enlisting troops and rais- 
 ing an ai-my, can we say nothing, and 
 
THE PRESIDENTLVL PROTEST. 
 
 375 
 
 do nothing? Suppose he were to declare 
 war against a foreign power, and put 
 the army and the fleet in action ; are we 
 etill to be silent? Suppose we should see 
 him borrowing money on the credit of 
 the United States; are we yet to wait 
 for impeachment? Indeed, Sir, in re- 
 gard to this borrowing money on the 
 credit cf the United States, I wish to 
 call the attention of the Senate, not 
 only to what might happen, but to what 
 h?^ actually happened. "We are in- 
 formed that the Post-Office Department, 
 & department over which the President 
 claims the same control as over tlie rest, 
 has actually borrowed near half a million of 
 money on the credit of the United States. 
 
 Mr. President, the first power granted 
 to Congress by the Constitution is the 
 power to lay taxes; the second, the 
 power to borrow money on the credit 
 of the United States. J^ow, Sir, where 
 does the executive find its authority, in 
 or through any department, to borrow 
 money without authority of CongTess ? 
 This proceeding appears to me wholly 
 illegal, and reprehensible in a very high 
 degree. It may be said that it is not 
 true that this money is borrowed on the 
 credit of the United States, but that it 
 is borrowed on the credit of the Post- 
 OfBce Department. But that would be 
 mere evasion. The departmejit is but a 
 name. It is an office, and nothing more. 
 The banks have not lent this money to 
 any officer. If Congress should abolish 
 the whole department to-morrow, would 
 the banks not expect the United States 
 to replace this borrowed money? The 
 money, then, is borrowed on the credit 
 of the United States, an act which Con- 
 gress alone is competent to authorize. 
 If the Post-Office Department may bor- 
 row maney, so may the War Department 
 and the Navy Department. If haK a 
 million may be borrowed, ten millic.is 
 may be borrowed. What, then, if this 
 transaction shall be justified, is to hinder 
 the executive from borrowing money to 
 maintain fleets and armies, or for any 
 other purpose, at his pleasure, without 
 any authority of law? Yet even this, 
 according to the doctrine of the Protest, 
 we have no right to complain of. We 
 
 have no right to declare that an execu- 
 tive department has violated the Consti- 
 tution and broken the law, by borrowing 
 money on the credit of the United States. 
 Nor could we make a similar declara- 
 tion, if we were to see the executive, by 
 means of this borrowed money, enlist- 
 ing armies and equipping fleets. And 
 yet. Sir, the President has found no diffi- 
 culty, heretofore, in expressing his opin- 
 ions, in a paper not called for by the exer- 
 cise of any official duty, upon the conduct 
 and proceedings of the two houses of 
 Congress. At the commencement of 
 this session, he sent us a message, com- 
 menting on the land bill which the two 
 houses passed at the end of the last ses- 
 sion. That bill he had not approved, 
 nor had he returned it with objections. 
 Congress was dissolved; and the bill, 
 therefore, was completely dead, and 
 coidd not be revived. No coixmfiunica- 
 tion from him could have the least pos- 
 sible effect as an official act. Yet he 
 saw fit to send a message on the subject, 
 and in that message he very freely de- 
 clares his opinion that the bill which 
 had passed both houses began with an 
 entire subversion of every one of the com- 
 pacts by tvhich the United States became 
 possessed of their Western domain; that 
 one of its provisions was in direct and 
 undisguised violation of the pledge given 
 by Congress to the States ; that the Con- 
 stitution provides that these compacts 
 shall be untouched by the legislative 
 power, which can only make needful 
 rules and regulations; and that all be- 
 yond that is an assumption of undelegated 
 power. 
 
 These are the terms in which the Pres- 
 ident speaks of an act of the two houses ; 
 not in an official paper, not in a com- 
 munication which it was necessary for 
 him to make to them; but in a message, 
 adopted only as a mode through which 
 to make public these opinions. After 
 this, it would seem too late to enjoin on 
 the houses of Congress a total forbear- 
 ance from all comment on the measures 
 of the executive. 
 
 Not only is it the right of both houses, 
 or of either, to resist, by vote, declara- 
 tion, or resolution, whatever it tnay 
 
376 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 deem an eucroachment of executive 
 power, but it is also undoubtedly the 
 right of either house to oppose, in like 
 manner, any encroachment by the other. 
 The two houses have each its own appro- 
 priate powers and authorities, which it 
 is bound to presers'e. They havo, too, 
 different constituents. The members of 
 chs Senate are representatives of States ; 
 and it is in the Senate alone that the 
 four-and-twenty States, as political bod- 
 ies, have a direct influence in the legis- 
 lative and executive powers of this gov- 
 ernment, lie is a strange advocate of 
 State rights, who maintains that this 
 body, thus representing the States, and 
 thus being the strictly federal branch of 
 the legislature, may not assert and main- 
 tain all and singular its own powers and 
 privileges, against either or both of the 
 otlier branches. 
 
 If any thing be done or threatened 
 derogatory to the rights of the States, as 
 secured by the organization of the Sen- 
 ate, may we not lift up om- voices against 
 it? Suppose the House of Representa- 
 tives should vote that the Senate ought 
 not to propose amendments to revenue 
 bills; would it be the duty of the Senate 
 to take no notice of such proceeding? 
 Or, if we were to see the President issu- 
 ing commissions to office to persons who 
 had never been nominated to the Senate, 
 are we not to remonstrate? 
 
 Sh-, there is no end of cases, no end of 
 illustrations. The doctrines of the Pro- 
 test, in this respect, cannot stand the 
 slightest scrutiny; tliey are blown away 
 by the first breath of discussion. 
 
 And yet, Sir, it is easy to perceive 
 why this right of declaring its sentiments 
 respecting the conduct of the executive 
 is denied to either house, in its legisla- 
 tive capacity. It is merely that tlie 
 Senate might be presented in the odious 
 light of trying the President, judicially, 
 without regular accusation or hearing. 
 Tiie Protest declares that the President 
 is charged tcith a crime, and, tcitltout hear- 
 ing or trial, found guilty and condemned. 
 This is evidently an attempt to apjieal 
 to popular feeling, and to represent the 
 President as unjustly treated and un- 
 fairly tiied Sir, -.t is a false appeal. 
 
 The President has not been tried at 
 all; he has not been accused; he ha? 
 not been charged with crime; he has 
 not been condemned. Accusation, trial, 
 and sentence are terms belonging to 
 judicial proceedings. But the Senate 
 has been engaged in no such pro- 
 ceeding. The resolution of the 2Sth of 
 March was not an exercise of judicial 
 power, either in form, in substance, or 
 in intent. Eveiybody knows that the 
 Senate can exercise no judicial power un- 
 til articles of impeachment are brought 
 before it. It is tlien to proceed, by ac- 
 cusation and answer, hearing, trial, and 
 judgment. But there has been no im- 
 peachment, no answer, no hearing, no 
 judgment. AU that the Senate did was 
 to pass a resolution, in legislative form, 
 declaring its opinion of certain acts of 
 the executive. This resolution imputed 
 no crime ; it charged no corrupt motive ; 
 it proposed no punishment. It was di- 
 rected, not against the President person- 
 ally, but against the act; and that act 
 it declared to be, in its judgment, an as- 
 siunption of authority not warranted by 
 the Constitution. 
 
 It is in vain that the Protest attempts 
 to shift the resolution to the judicial 
 character of the Senate. The case is too 
 plain for such an argument to be plausi- 
 ble. But, in order to lay some founda- 
 tion for it, the Protest, as I have already 
 said, contends that neither the Senate 
 nor tlie House of Representatives can ex- 
 press its opinions on the conduct of the 
 President, except in some form con- 
 nected with impeachment; so that if the 
 power of impeachment did not exist, 
 these two houses, thougli they be repro- 
 sentative bodies, tJiough one of them bi' 
 filled by the immediate representatives 
 of the people, though they be constituted 
 like otlier popular and representative 
 bodies, could not utter a syllable, al- 
 though they saw the executive either 
 trampling on their own rights and priv- 
 ileges, or grasping at absolute authority 
 and dominion over the liberties of tlie 
 country! Sir, I hardly know how to 
 speak of such claims of impunity for 
 executive encroachment. I am amazed 
 that anv American citizen should dr;iw 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 377 
 
 ap a paper containing such lofty pre- 
 tensions; pretensions ■\vhicli would have 
 been met with scorn in England, at any 
 time since the Revolution of 1GS8. A 
 man who should stand uj), in either 
 house of tlie Britisli rarliumcut, to main- 
 tain that the house could not, bj' vote or 
 resolution, maintain its own rights and 
 privileges, would make even tlie Tory 
 benches hang their heads for very shame. 
 
 There was, indeed, a time when such 
 proceedings were not allowed. Some of 
 the kings of the Stuart race would not 
 tolerate them. A signal instance of 
 royal displeasure with the proceedings 
 of Parliament occurred in the latter part 
 of the reign of James the First. The 
 House of Commons had spoken, on 
 some occasion, "of its own undoubted 
 rights and privileges." The king there- 
 upon sent them a letter, declaring that 
 he would not allow that they had an;/ un- 
 doubted }-ir/hts; but that what the;/ eiijoijed 
 they miyht still hold bij his own royal yrace 
 and permission. Sir Edward Coke and 
 'Mv. Granville were not satisfied with 
 this title to their privileges ; and, under 
 their lead, the house entered on its jour- 
 nals a resolution asserting its privileges, 
 as its own undoubted right, and manifest- 
 ing a determination to maintain them as 
 such. This, says the historian, so en- 
 raged his ^lajesty, that he sent for the 
 journal, had it brought into the Council, 
 and there, in the presence of his lords 
 and great officers of state, tore out the 
 offensive resolution with his own royal 
 hand. He then dissolved Parliament, 
 and sent its most refractory members to 
 the Tower. I have no fear, certainly. 
 Sir, that this English example will be 
 followed, on this occasion, to its full ex- 
 tent; nor would I insinuate that any 
 thhig outrageous has been thought of, or 
 intended, except outrageous pretensions; 
 but such pretensions I must impute to 
 the author of this Protest, whoever that 
 author may be. 
 
 When this and the other house shall 
 lose the freedom of speech and debate; 
 when they shall surrender the rights of 
 publicly and freely canvassing all im- 
 portant measures of the executive; when 
 they shall not be allowed to maintain 
 
 their own authority and their own pj-ivi- 
 leges by vote, declaration, or resolution, 
 — they will then be no longer free repre- 
 sentatives of a free people, but slaves 
 themselves, and fit instruments to make 
 slaves of others. 
 
 Tlie Protest, Mr. President, concedes 
 what it doubtless regards as a liberal 
 right of discussion to the jieople them- 
 selves. But its language, even in ac- 
 knowledging this right of the /leoplc to 
 discuss the conduct of their servants., is 
 qualified and peculiar. The free people 
 of the United States, it declares, have 
 an undoubted right to di.scuss the offi- 
 cial conduct of the President in such 
 language and form as they may think 
 pi-oper, "subject only to the restraints 
 of truth and justice." But, then, who 
 is to be judge of this truth and justice^ 
 Are the people to judge for themselves, 
 or are others to judge for themV The 
 Protest is here speaking of /mlitical rights, 
 and not moral rights; and if restraints 
 are impo.sed on political rights, it must 
 follow, of course, that others are to de- 
 cide whenever the case arises whether 
 these restraints have been violated. It 
 is strange that the writer of the Protest 
 did not perceive that, by using this lan- 
 guage, he was pushing the President 
 into a direct avowal of the doctrines of 
 1798. The text of the Protest and the 
 text of the obnoxious -act ^ of that year 
 are nearly identical. 
 
 But, Sir, if the people have a right to 
 discuss the official conduct of the execu- 
 tive, so have their representatives. We 
 have been taught to regard a representa- 
 tive of the people as a sentinel on the 
 watch-tower of liberty. Is he to be 
 blind, though visible danger approaches'^ 
 Is he to be deaf, though sounds of peiil 
 fill the air? Is he to be dumb, while a 
 thousand duties impel him to raise the 
 cry of alarm? Is he not, rather, to 
 catch the lowest whisper which breathes 
 intention or purpose of encroachment 
 on the public liberties, and to give his 
 voice breath and utterance at the first 
 appearance of danger? Is not his eye 
 to travcjse the whole horizon with the 
 
 1 Coiunionly tallcil the Sedition Act, ap- 
 proved 14th .July, 1798. 
 
378 
 
 TIIE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 keen and eager vision of an unhooded 
 hawk, detecting, througli all disguises, 
 every enemy advancing, in any form, 
 towards the citadel which he guards? 
 Sir, this watchfulness for public liberty; 
 tliis duty of foreseeing danger and pro- 
 claiming it; this promptitude and bold- 
 ness in resisting attacks on the Consti- 
 tution from any quarter; this defence of 
 established landmarks; this fearless re- 
 sistance of whatever would transcend or 
 remove them, — all belong to the repre- 
 sentative character, are interwoven with 
 its very nature. If deprived of them, 
 an active, intelligent, faithful agent of 
 the people will be converted into an 
 unresisting and passive instrument of 
 power. A representative body, which 
 gives up these rights and duties, gives 
 itself up. It is a representative body 
 no longer. It has broken the tie be- 
 tween itself and its constituents, and 
 henceforth is fit only to be regarded as 
 an inert, self-sacrificed mass, from which 
 all appropriate principle of vitality has 
 departed for ever. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to vindicate 
 the right of the Senate to pass the reso- 
 lution of the 2Sth of March, notwith- 
 standing the denial of that right in the 
 Protest. 
 
 But there are other sentiments and 
 opinions expressed in the Protest, of the 
 very highest importance, and which de- 
 mand nothing less than our utmost at- 
 tention. 
 
 The first object of a free people is the 
 preservation of their liberty; and liberty 
 is only to be presei-ved by maintaining 
 constitutional restraints and just di- 
 visions of political power. Nothing is 
 more deceptive or more dangerous than 
 the pretence of a desire to simplify gov- 
 ernment. The simplest governments are 
 despotisms; the next simplest, limited 
 monarchies; but all republics, all gov- 
 ernments of law, must impose numerous 
 limitations and qualifications of author- 
 ity, and give many positive and many 
 qualified rights. In other words, they 
 must be subject to rule and regulation. 
 This is the very essence of free political 
 institutions. The spirit of liberty is, 
 indeed, a bold and fearless spirit; but 
 
 it is also a sharp-sighted spirit, it is • 
 cautious, sagacious, discriminating, far- 
 seeing intelligence; it is jealous of en- 
 croachment, jealous of power, jealous of 
 man. It demands checks; it seeks foi 
 guards; it insists on securities; it in- 
 trenches itself behind strong defences, 
 and fortifies itself with all possible care 
 against the assaults of ambition and 
 passion. It does not trust the amiable 
 weaknesses of human nature, and there- 
 fore it will not permit power to overstep 
 its prescribed limits, though benevo- 
 lence, good intent, and patriotic pur- 
 pose come along with it. Neither does 
 it satisfy itself with fla.shy and tempo- 
 rary resistance to illegal authority. Far 
 otherwise. It seeks for duration and 
 permanence. It looks before and after; 
 and, building on the experience of ages 
 which are past, it labors diligently for 
 the benefit of ages to come. This is the 
 nature of constitutional liberty; and tliis 
 is our liberty, if we will rightly under- 
 stand and j^reserve it. Every free gov- 
 ernment is necessarily complicated, be- 
 cause all such governments establish 
 restraints, as well on the power of gov- 
 ernment itself as on that of individuals. 
 If we will abolish the distinction of 
 branches, and have but one branch; if 
 we will abolish jury trials, and leave all 
 to the judge; if we will then ordain 
 that the legislator shall himself be that 
 judge; and if we will place the execu- 
 tive power in the same hands, we may 
 readily simplify government. We may 
 ea.sily bring it to the simplest of all 
 possible forms, a pure despotism. But 
 a separation of departments, so far as 
 practicable, and the preservation of 
 clear lines of division between them, is 
 the fundamental idea in the creation of 
 all our constitutions; and, doubtless, the 
 continuance of regulated liberty depends 
 on maintaining these boundaries. 
 
 In the progress, Sir, of the govern- 
 ments of the United States, we seem 
 exposed to two classes of dangers or 
 disturbances; one external, the other 
 internal. It may happen that collisions 
 arise between this government and the 
 governments of the States. That case 
 belongs to the first class. A memorable 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 379 
 
 instance of this kind occurred last year. 
 It was my conscientious opinion, on that 
 occasion, that the authority claimed by 
 an individual State ^ was subversive of 
 tiie just powers of this government, and, 
 indeed, incompatible with its existence. 
 J gave a hearty co-operation, therefore, 
 to measures which the crisis seemed to 
 require. We have now before us what 
 appears, to my judgment, to be an in- 
 stance of the latter kind. A contest 
 has arisen between different branches 
 of tlie same government, interrupting 
 their harmony, and threatening to dis- 
 turb their balance. It is of the highest 
 importance, therefore, to examine the 
 question carefully, and to decide it 
 justly. 
 
 The separation of the powers of gov- 
 ernment into three departments, though 
 all our constitutions profess to be founded 
 on it, has, nevertheless, never been per- 
 fectly established in any government of 
 the world, and perhaps never can be. 
 The general principle is of inestimable 
 value, and the leading lines of distinc- 
 tion sufficiently plain; yet there are 
 powers of so undecided a character, that 
 they do not seem necessarily to range 
 themselves under either head. And 
 most of our constitutions, too, having 
 laid down the general principle, imme- 
 diately create exceptions. There do not 
 exist, in the general science of govern- 
 ment, or the received maxims of po- 
 litical law, such precise definitions as 
 enable us always to say of a given power 
 whether it be legislative, executive, or 
 judicial. And this is one reason, 
 doubtless, why the Constitution, in con- 
 ferring power on all the departments, 
 proceeds not by general definition, but 
 by specific enumeration. And, again, 
 it grants a power in general terms, but 
 yet, in the same or some other article or 
 section, imposes a limitation or qualifi- 
 cation on the grant; and the grant and 
 the limitation must, of course, be con- 
 strued together. Thus the Constitution 
 pays that all legislative power, therein 
 granted, shall be vested in Congress, 
 which Congress shaU consist of a Senate 
 and House of Representatives; and yet, 
 
 1 South Carolina. 
 
 in another article, it gives to the Presi- 
 dent a qualified negative over all acts of 
 Congress. So the Constitution declares 
 that the judicial power shall be vested 
 in one Supreme Court, and such inferioj 
 courts as Congress may establish. It 
 gives, nevertheless, in another provision, 
 judicial power to the Senate; and, in 
 like manner, though it declares that the 
 executive power shall be vested in tiie 
 President, using, in the i:nmediate con- 
 text, no woi'ds of limitation, yet it else- 
 where subjects the treaty-making power, 
 and the appointing power, to the con- 
 currence of the Senate. The irresistible 
 inference from these considerations is, 
 that the mere nomination of a depart- 
 ment, as one of the three great and 
 commonly acknowledged departments of 
 government, does not confer on that de- 
 partment any power at all. Notwith- 
 standing the departments are called the 
 legislative, the executive, and the judi- 
 cial, we must yet look into the provisions 
 of the Constitution itseK, in order to 
 learn, first, what powers the Constitu- 
 tion regards as legislative, executive, 
 and judicial; and, in the next place, 
 what portions or quantities of these 
 powers are conferred on the respective 
 departments; because no one will con- 
 tend that all legislative power belongs 
 to Congress, all executive power to the 
 President, or all judicial power to the 
 courts of the United States. 
 
 The first three articles of the Consti- 
 tution, as all know, are taken up in 
 prescribing the organization, and enu- 
 merating the powers, of the three de- 
 partments. The first article treats of 
 the legislature, and its first section is, 
 " All legislative power, herein granted. 
 shall be vested in a Congress of the 
 United States, which shall consist of a 
 Senate and House of Representatives." 
 The second article treats of the execu- 
 tive power, and its first section de.'lares 
 that " the executive power shall be 
 vested in a President of the United 
 States of America." The third article 
 treats of the judicial power, and its 
 first section declares that " the judicial 
 power of the United States shall be 
 vested in one Supreme Court, and in 
 
380 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 such inferior courts as the Congress 
 may, from time to time, orJain and 
 establish." 
 
 It is too plain to be doubted, I think. 
 Sir, that these descriptions of the per- 
 sons or officers in whom the executive 
 and the judicial powers are to be vested 
 no more define the extent of the grant 
 of those powers, than tlie words quoted 
 from the first article describe the extent 
 of the legislative grant to Congress. All 
 these several titles, heads of articles, or 
 introductory clauses, with the general 
 declarations which they contain, serve 
 to designate the departments, and to 
 mark the general distribution of powers ; 
 but in all the departments, in the execu- 
 tive and judicial as well as in the legis- 
 lative, it would be unsafe to contend for 
 any specific power under such clauses. 
 
 If we look into the State constitu- 
 tions, we shall find the line of distinc- 
 tion between the departments still less 
 perfectly drawn, although the general 
 principle of the distinction is laid downi 
 in most of them, and in some of them in 
 very positive and emphatic terms. In 
 some of these States, notwithstanding 
 the principle of distribution is adopted 
 and sanctioned, the legislature appoints 
 the judges; and in others it appoints 
 both the governor and the judges; and 
 in others, again, it appoints not only the 
 judges, but all other officers. 
 
 The inferences which, I think, follow 
 from these views of the subject, are two: 
 first, that the denomination of a depart- 
 ment does not fix the limits of the pow- 
 ers conferred on it, nor even their exact 
 nnture; and, second (which, indeed, fol- 
 lows from the first), that in our Amer- 
 ican governments, the chief executive 
 magistrate does not necessarily, and by 
 force of his general character of supreme 
 executive, possess the appointing power. 
 He may have it, or he may not, accord- 
 ing to the particular provisions applica- 
 ble to each case in the respfective consti- 
 tutions. 
 
 The President appears to have taken 
 a different view of this subject. He 
 seems to regard the appointing power as 
 originally and inherently in the execu- 
 tive, and as remaining absolute in his 
 
 hands, except so far as the Con.'titiition 
 restrains it. This I do not agree to, and 
 I shall have occasion hereafter to exam 
 ine the question further. I have in- 
 tended thus far only to insist on the high 
 and indispensable duty of maintaining 
 the division of power as the Conxtitution 
 has marked out that division, and to o\> 
 pose claims of authority not founded on 
 express grants or necessary implication, 
 but sustained merely by argument or in- 
 ference from names or denominations 
 given to departments. 
 
 ^Ir. President, the resolutions now be- 
 fore us declare, that the Protest asserta 
 powers as belonging to the President in- 
 consistent with the authority of the two 
 houses of Congress, and inconsistent 
 with the Constitution; and that the 
 Protest itself is a breach of privilege. 
 I believe all this to be true. 
 
 The doctrines of the Protest are in- 
 consistent with the authority of the two 
 houses, because, in my judgment, they 
 deny the just extent of the law-makbig 
 power. I take the Protest as it was sent 
 to us, without inquii-ing how far the 
 subsequent message has modified or ex- 
 plained it. It is singular, indeed, that 
 a paper, so long in preparation, so elab- 
 orate in composition, and which is put 
 forth for so high a purpose as the Pro- 
 test avows, should not be able to stand 
 an hour's discussion before it became 
 evident that it was indisjiensably neces- 
 sary to alter or explain its contents. 
 Explained or miexplained, however, the 
 paper contains sentiments which justify 
 us, as I think, in adopting these resolu- 
 tions. 
 
 In the first place, I think the Protest 
 a clear breach of privilege. It is a re- 
 proof or rebuke of the Senate, in lan- 
 guage hardly respectful, for the exercise 
 of a power clearly belonging to it as a 
 legislative body. It entirely misrepre- 
 sents the proceedings of the Senate. I 
 find this paragraph in it, among others 
 of a similar tone and character: "A 
 majority of the Senate, whose interfer- 
 ence with the preliminary question has, 
 for the best of all reasons, been studi- 
 ously excluded, anticipate the action of 
 the House of Representatives, assume 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 381 
 
 not only tlio function which belongs ex- 
 clusively to that body, but convert them- 
 selves into accusers, -witnesses, coun- 
 sel, and judges, and prejudge the whole 
 case; thus presenting the appalling spec- 
 tacle, in a free state, of judges going 
 through a laboi'ed ]ireparation for an im- 
 partial hearing and decision, by a previ- 
 ous ex parte investigation and sentence 
 against the sujiposed oifender." 
 
 Now, Sir, this paragraph, I am bound 
 to say, is a total misrepresentation of 
 the proceedings of the Senate. A ma- 
 jority of the Senate have not anticipated 
 the House of Representatives; they have 
 not assumed the functions of that body ; 
 they have not converted themselves into 
 accusers, witnesses, counsel, or judges; 
 they have made no ex parte investiga- 
 tion ; they have given no sentence. This 
 paragraph is an elaborate perversion of 
 the whole design and the whole proceed- 
 ings of the Senate. A Protest, sent to 
 us by the President, against votes which 
 the Senate has an um^uestiouable right 
 to pass, and containing, too, such a mis- 
 representation of these votes as this par- 
 agraph manifests, is a breach of privilege. 
 
 But there is another breach of priv- 
 ilege. The President interferes between 
 the members of the Senate and their 
 constituents, and charges them with act- 
 ing contrary to the will of those constit- 
 iients. lie says it is his right and duty 
 to look to the journals of the Senate to 
 ascertain who voted for the resolution of 
 the 2Sth of March, and then to show 
 that individual Senators have, by their 
 votes on that resolution, disobeyed the 
 instructions or violated the known will 
 of the legislatures who appointed them. 
 .Ul this he claims as his right and his 
 duty. And where does he find any such 
 right or any such duty? AVhat right 
 has he to send a message to either house 
 of Congress telling its members that 
 they disobey the will of their constit- 
 uents V Has any English sovereign since 
 Cromwell's time dared to send such a 
 message to Parliament ? Sir, if he can 
 tell us that some of us disobey our con- 
 stituents, he can tell us that all do so; 
 and if we consent to receive this lan- 
 guage from him, there is but one re- 
 
 maining step, and that is, that since "wo 
 thus disobey the will of our constituents, 
 he should disperse us and send us home. 
 In my opinion, the first step in this 
 process is as distinct a breach of privi- 
 lege as the last. If Cromwell's example 
 shall be followed out, it will not be more 
 clear then than it is now that the privi- 
 leges of the Senate have been violated. 
 There is yet something. Sir, which sur- 
 passes all this; and that is, that, after 
 this direct interference, after pointing 
 out those Senators whom he would rep- 
 resent as having disobeyed the known 
 will of their constituents, he disclaims all 
 (lesi(/n of interfering at all! Sir, who 
 couid be the writer of a message, which, 
 in the first place, makes the President 
 assert such monstrous pretensions, and, 
 in the next line, affront the imderstand- 
 ing of the Senate by disavowing all 
 riglit to do that very thing which he is 
 doing ? If there be any thing. Sir, in 
 this message, more likely than the rest 
 of it to move one from his equanimity, 
 it is this disclaimer of all design to in- 
 terfere with the responsibility of mem- 
 bers of the Senate to their constituents, 
 after such interference had already been 
 made, in the same paper, in the most 
 objectionable and offensive form. If it 
 were not for the pm-pose of telling these 
 Senators that they disobeyed the will of 
 the legislatures of the States they repre- 
 sent, for what purpose was it that the 
 Protest has pointed out the four Sen- 
 ators, and paraded against them the sen- 
 timents of their legislatures V There can 
 be no other purpose. The Protest says, 
 indeed, that "these facts belong to the 
 history of these proceedings"! To the 
 history of what proceedings? To any 
 proceeding to which the President was 
 party? To any proceeding to which the 
 Senate was party? Have they any thing 
 to do with the resolution of the 2Sth of 
 March? But it adds, that these facts 
 are important to the just derelopment of the 
 principles and interests involved in the pro- 
 ceedings. All ihis might be said of any 
 other facts. It is mere words. To what 
 principles, to what interests, are these 
 facts important? They can be impor- 
 tant but in one point of view; ai:d that 
 
882 
 
 THE PRESIDENTLVL PROTEST. 
 
 IS ua proof, or evidence, that the Sen- 
 ators have disobeyed instructions, or 
 acted against the kno^A-n will of their 
 constituents in disapproving the Presi- 
 dent's conduct. They have not the 
 slightest bearing in any other way. 
 They do not make the resolution of the 
 Semite more or less true, nor its right to 
 pass it more or less clear. Sir, these 
 proceedings of the legislatures were in- 
 troduced into this Protest for the very 
 pm-pose, and no other, of showing that 
 members of the Senate have acted con- 
 trary to the will of their constituents. 
 Eveiy man sees and knows this to have 
 been the sole design ; and any other pre- 
 tence is a mockery to our miderstandings. 
 And this j-urpose is, in my opinion, an 
 unlawful purpose; it is an unjustifiable 
 intervention between us and our constit- 
 uents; and is, therefore, a manifest and 
 flagrant breach of privilege. 
 
 In the next i)lace, the assertions of the 
 Protest are inconsistent with the just 
 authority of Cono-ress, because they claim 
 for the President a power, independent 
 of Congress, to possess the custody and 
 control of the public treasures. Let this 
 point be accurately examined; and, in 
 order to avoid mistake, I will read the 
 precise words of the Protest. 
 
 " The custody of the public property, un- 
 der such regulations as may be prescribed 
 by legislative authority, has always been 
 considirt'd an apijropriatc function of tlie 
 executive department in this and all other 
 governments. In accordance with tliis prin- 
 ciple, every species of property beIonj,nng to 
 the United States, (excepting that which is 
 in the use of tiie several co-ordinate depart- 
 ments of tlie government, as means to aid 
 tlieni in performing tlieir appropriate func- 
 tions,) is in cliarge of officers appointed 
 by the President, whether it be lands, or 
 bui!;lings, or nu-rclianrlise, or provisions, or 
 clothing, or arms and munitions of war. 
 The superintendents and keepers of the 
 whole are appointed by the President, and 
 removable at his will. 
 
 " PubHc money is but a species of public 
 property. It cannot be raised by taxation 
 or customs, nor brougiit into the treasury 
 in any other way exeept by law ; but wlien- 
 ever or howsoever obtained, its custody al- 
 ways has been, aud always must be, unless 
 
 the Constitution be changed, intrusted to 
 the executive department. No orficer can 
 be created by Congress, for the purpose of 
 taking cliarge of it, whose appointment 
 would not, by the Constitution, at onee de- 
 volve on the President, and who would not 
 be responsible to him for the faithful per- 
 formance of his duties." 
 
 And, in another place, it declares that 
 " Congress cannot, therefore, take out of 
 the haiKls of the executive department 
 the custody of the public property or 
 money, without an assumption of execu- 
 tive power, and a subversion of tlie first 
 principles of the Constitution." These, 
 Sir, are propositions which cannot re- 
 ceive too much attention. They aflarra, 
 that the custody of the public money 
 constitutionallv and necessarilv belongs 
 to the executive; and that, until the 
 Constitution is changed. Congress can- 
 not take it out of his hands, nor make 
 any pro%dsion for its custody, except by 
 such superintendents and keepei-s as are 
 appointed by the President and remova- 
 ble at his will. If these assertions be 
 correct, we have, indeed, a singular 
 constitution for a republican govern- 
 ment; for we give the executive the 
 control, the custody, and the posses- 
 sion of the public treasury, by origi- 
 nal constitutional provision ; and when 
 Congi-ess appropriates, it appropriates 
 only what is already in the President's 
 hands. 
 
 Sir, I hold these propositions to be 
 sound in neither branch. I maintain 
 that the custody of the public money 
 does not necessarily belong to the ex- 
 ecutive, under this government; and I 
 hold that Congress may so dispose of it, 
 that it shall be under the superintend- 
 ence of keepers not appointed by the 
 President, nor removable at his will. I 
 think it competent for Congress to de- 
 clare, as Congress did declare in the 
 bank charter, that the public deposits 
 should be made in the bank. When in 
 the bank, they were not kept by persona 
 appointed by the President, or remova- 
 ble at his will. He could not change 
 that custody; nor could it be changed 
 at all. but according to provisions made 
 in the law itself. There w as, indeed, a 
 
THE PRESIDENTLVL PROTEST. 
 
 383 
 
 provision in the law authorizing the Sec- 
 retari/ to change the custody. But sup- 
 pose there had been no such provision; 
 suppose the contingent power had not 
 been given to the Secretary; would it 
 not have been a lawful enactment? 
 iSIight net the law have provided that 
 the public moneys should remain in the 
 bank, until Congress itself should other- 
 wise order, leaving jio power of removal 
 anywhere else? And if such provision 
 had been made, what power, or custody, 
 or control, would the President have 
 j^>ossessed over them? Clearly, none at 
 all. The act of ^lay, 18U0, directed 
 custom-house bonds, in places where the 
 bank which was then in existence was 
 situated, or in which it had branches, to 
 be deposited in the bank or its branches 
 for collection, without the reservation 
 to the Secretary, or anybody else, of 
 any power of removal. Now, Sir, this 
 was an unconstitutional law, if the Pro- 
 test, in the part now under consideration, 
 be correct ; because it placed the public 
 money in a custody beyond the control 
 of the President, and in the hands of 
 keepers not appointed by him, nor re- 
 movable at his pleasure. One may 
 readily discern, Sir, the process of rea- 
 soning by which the author of the Pro- 
 test brought himself to the conclusion 
 that Congress could not place the public 
 moneys beyond the President's control. 
 It is aU founded on the power of ap- 
 pointment and the power of removal. 
 These powers, it is supposed, must give 
 the President complete control and au- 
 thority over those who actually hold the 
 money, and therefore must necessarily 
 subject its custody, at all times, to his 
 own individual will. This is the argu- 
 ment. 
 
 It is true, that the appointment of all 
 public officers, with some exceptions, is, 
 by the Constitution, given to the Presi- 
 dent, with the consent of the Senate; 
 and as, in most cases, public property 
 must be held by some officer, its keepers 
 •will generally be persons so appointed. 
 But this is only the common, not a neces- 
 sary consequence, of giving the appoint- 
 ing power to the President and Senate. 
 Congress may still, if it .shall so see fit, 
 
 place the public treasure in the hand of 
 no officer appointed by the President, oi 
 removable by him, but in hands quite 
 beyond his control. Subject to one 
 contingency only, it did this very thing 
 by the charter of the pre.sent bank; 
 and it did the same thing absolutely, 
 and subject to no contingency, by the 
 law of 1800. The Protest, in the first 
 place, seizes on tlie fact that all officers 
 must be appointed by the President, or 
 on his nomination; it then assumes the 
 next step, that all officers are, and must 
 be, removable at his pleasure; and then, 
 insisting that public money, like other 
 public property, must be kept by some 
 public officer, it thus arrives at the con- 
 clusion that it 'must always be in the 
 hands of those who are appointed by the 
 President, and who are removable at his 
 pleasure. And it is very clear that the 
 Protest means to maintain that the tenure 
 of office cannot he so regulated by law, as 
 that public officers shall not be removable at 
 the pleasure of the President. 
 
 The President considers the right of 
 removal as a fixed, vested, constitutional 
 right, which Congress cannot limit, con- 
 trol, or qualify, until the Constitution 
 shall be altered. This, Sir, is doctrine 
 which I am not pre^sared to admit. I 
 shall not now discuss the question, 
 •whether the law may not place the 
 tenure of office beyond the reach of ex- 
 ecutive pleasure; but I wish merely to 
 draw the attention of the Senate to the 
 fact, that any such power in Congress 
 is denied by the principles and by the 
 words of the Protest. According to that 
 paper, we live under a constitution by 
 the pro^nsions of •which the public treas- 
 ures are, necessarily and luiavoidably, 
 alwaj's under executive control ; and aa 
 the executive may remove all officers, 
 and appoint others, at lea.st temporarily, 
 without the concurrence of the Senate, 
 he may hold those treasures, in tho 
 hands of persons appointed by himself 
 alone, in defiance of any law which 
 Congress has passed or can pass. It is 
 to be seen. Sir, how far such claims of 
 power wiU receive the approbation of the 
 country. It is to be seen whether a con- 
 struction will be reatlily adopted •which 
 
384 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 thus places the public purse out of the 
 guardianship of the immediate repre- 
 sentatives of the people. 
 
 But, Sir, there is, in this paper, some- 
 thing even yet more strange than these 
 extraordinary claims of power. There 
 is a strong disposition, running through 
 the whole Protest, to repre.sent the execu- 
 tive department of this government as 
 tlie peculiar protector of the public lib- 
 erty, the chief security on which the 
 people are to rely against the encroach- 
 ment of other branches of the govern- 
 ment. Nothing can be more manifest 
 tlian this purpose. To this end, the 
 Protest spreads out the President's offi- 
 cial oath, reciting all its words in a 
 formal quotation; and yet the oath of 
 members of Congi-ess is exactly equiva- 
 lent. The President is to swear that he 
 will "preserve, protect, and defend the 
 Constitution"; and members of Con- 
 gress are to swear that they will *' sup- 
 port the Constitution." There are more 
 words in one oath than the other, but 
 the sense is precisely the same. Why, 
 then, this reference to his official oath, 
 and this ostentatious quotation of it? 
 Would the writer of the Protest argue 
 that the oath itself is any grant of 
 power; or that, because the President is 
 to "preserve, protect, and defend the 
 Constitution," he is therefore to use 
 what means he pleases for such preser- 
 vation, protection, and defence, or any 
 means except those which the Constitu- 
 tion and laws have specifically given 
 him? Such an argument would be ab- 
 surd; but if the oath be not cited for 
 this preposterous purpose, with what de- 
 sign is it thus displayed on the face of 
 the Protest, unless it be to support the 
 general idea that the maintenance of 
 the Constitution and the preservation of 
 the public liberties are especially con- 
 fided to the safe discretion, the sure 
 moderation, the paternal guardianship, 
 of executive power? The oath of the 
 President contains three words, all of 
 equal import; that is, that he wiU pre- 
 serve, protect, and defend the Constitu- 
 tion. The oath of members of Con- 
 gress is expressed in shorter phrase; it 
 is, that they will suppurl the Constitu- 
 
 tion. If there be any difference in the 
 meaning of the two oaths, I cannot dis- 
 cern it; and yet the Protest solemnly 
 and formally argues thus: " The duty 
 of defending, so far as in him lies, the 
 integrity of the Constitution, would, in- 
 deed, have resulted from the very nature 
 of his office; but by thus expressing it 
 in the official oath or affirmation, which, 
 in this respect, diffys from that of every 
 other functionary, the founders of our 
 republic have attested their sense of its 
 importance, and have given to it a pe- 
 culiar solemnity' and force." 
 
 Sir, I deny the proposition, and I dis- 
 pute the proof. I deny tliat the duty of 
 defending the integrity of the Constitu- 
 tion is, in any peculiar sense, confided 
 to the President; and I deny that the 
 words of his oath furnish any arg-ument 
 to make good that proposition. Be 
 pleased. Sir, to remember against whom 
 it is tliat the President holds it Ms pe- 
 culiar duty to defend the integrity of the 
 Constitution. It is not against external 
 force; it is not against a foreign foe; no 
 such thing; hut it is against the represent- 
 atives of the people and the representatives 
 of the States ! It is against these that the 
 founders of our republic have imj^osed 
 on him the duty of defending the integ- 
 rity of the Constitution ; a duty, he says, 
 of the importance of which they have 
 attested their sense, and to which they 
 have given peculiar solemnity and force, 
 by expressing it in his official oath I 
 
 Let us pause. Sir, and consider this 
 most strange proposition. The Presi- 
 dent is the chief executive magistrate. 
 lie is commander-in-chief of the army 
 and navy; nominates all persons to 
 office; claims a right to remove all at 
 will, and to control all, while yet in 
 oflice; dispenses all favors; and wields 
 the whole patronage of tlie government. 
 And the proposition is, that the duty of 
 defending the integrity of the Con.sti- 
 tution against the representatives of the 
 States and against the representatives of 
 the people, results to him from the very na- 
 ture of his office; and that the founders 
 of our republic have given to this duty, 
 thus confided to him, peculiar solemnity 
 and force ! 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 385 
 
 Mr. President, the coutest, for ages, 
 has been to rescue Liberty from the 
 grasp of executive power. Whoever 
 has engaged in her sacred cause, from 
 the da^-s of the downfall of those great 
 aristocracies which had stood between 
 the king and the people to the time of 
 our own independence, has struggled 
 for the accomplishment of that single 
 object. On the long list of the cham- 
 pions of human freedom, there is not 
 one name dimmed by the reproach of 
 advocating the extension of executive 
 authority; on the contrary, tlie uniform 
 and steady purpose of all such cham- 
 pions has been to limit and restrain it. 
 To this end the spirit of liberty, grow- 
 ing more and more enlightened and 
 more and more vigorous from age to 
 age, has been battering, for centuries, 
 against the solid butments of the feudal 
 system. To this end, all that could be 
 gained from the imprudence, snatched 
 from the weakness, or wrung from the 
 necessities of crowned heads, has been 
 carefully gathered up, secured, and 
 hoarded, as the rich treasures, the very 
 jewels of liberty. To this end, popular 
 and representative right has kept up its 
 warfare against prerogative, with va- 
 rious siiccess; sometimes wi'iting the 
 history of a whole age in blood, some- 
 times witnessing the martyrdom of Sid- 
 neys and llussells, often baffled and 
 repulsed, but still gaining, on the whole, 
 and holding what it gained with a grasp 
 which nothing but the complete extinc- 
 tion of its own being could compel it to 
 relinquish. At length, the great con- 
 quest over executive power, in the lead- 
 ing western states of Europe, has been 
 accomplished. The feudal system, like 
 other stupendous fabrics of past ages, is 
 known only by the rubbish which it has 
 left behind it. Crowned heads have 
 been compelled to submit to the re- 
 straints of law, and the people, with 
 that intelligence and that spirit which 
 make their voice resistless, have been 
 able to say to prerogative, "Thus far 
 shalt thou come, and no farther." I 
 need hardly say. Sir, that into tlie full 
 enjoyment of all which Europe has 
 reached only through such slow and 
 
 painful steps we sprang at once, by the 
 Declaration of Independence, and by 
 the establishment of free representative 
 governments ; governments borrowing 
 more or less from the models of other 
 free states, but strengthened, secured, 
 improved in their symmetry, and deep- 
 ened in their foundation, by those great 
 men of our own countiy whose names 
 will be as familiar to future times as 
 if they were written on the arch of the 
 sky. 
 
 Through all this history of the con- 
 test for liberty, executive power ha.«» 
 been regarded as a lion which must be 
 caged. So far from being the object of 
 enlightened popular trust, so far from 
 being considered the natural protector 
 of popular right, it has been dreaded, 
 uniformly, always dreaded, as the great 
 source of its danger. 
 
 And now, Sir, who is he, so ignorant 
 of the history of liberty, at home and 
 abroad; who is he, yet dwelling in his 
 contemplations among the principles 
 and dogmas of the Middle Ages; who is 
 he, from whose bosom all original infu- 
 sion of American spirit has become so 
 entirely evaporated and exhaled, that 
 he shall put into the mouth of the 
 President of the United States the doc- 
 trine that the defence of liberty natu- 
 rally results to executive power, and is 
 its peculiar duty? Who is he, that, 
 generous and confiding towards power 
 where it is most dangerous, and jealous 
 only of those who can restrain it, — who 
 is he, that, reversing the order of the 
 state, and upheaving the base, would 
 poise the pyramid of the political sys- 
 tem upon its apex? 'Who is he, that, 
 overlooking with contempt the guar- 
 dianship of the representatives of the 
 people, and with equal contempt the 
 higher guardianship of the people them- 
 selves, — who is he tliat declares to us, 
 through the President's lips, that the 
 security for freedom rests in executive 
 authority? Who is he that belies the 
 blood and libels the fame of his own 
 ancestors, by declaring that they, with 
 soleimiity of form, and force of manner, 
 have invoked the executive power to 
 come to the protection of liberty? "Who 
 25 
 
88t) 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 IS he that thus charges them with the 
 insanity, or the recklessness, of putting 
 the lamb beneath the lion's paw? No, 
 Sir. No, Sir. Our security is in our 
 watchfulness of executive power. It 
 was the constitution of this department 
 which was infinitely the most difficult 
 part in the great work of creating our 
 present government. To give to the 
 executive department such power as 
 should make it useful, and yet not such 
 as should render it dangerous ; to make 
 it efficient, independent, and strong, 
 and yet to prevent it from sweeping 
 away every thing by its union of mili- 
 tary and civil authority, by the influ- 
 ence of patronage, and office, and favor, 
 — this, indeed, was difficult. They 
 who had the work to do saw the diffi- 
 culty, and we see it; and if we would 
 maintain our system, we shall act 
 wisely to that end, by preserving every 
 restraint and eveiy guard which the 
 Constitution has provided. And when 
 we, and those who come after us, have 
 done all that we can do, and all that 
 they can do, it will be well for us and 
 for them, if some popular executive, by 
 the power of patronage and party, and 
 the power, too, of that very jiopular- 
 ity, shall not hereafter prove an over- 
 match for all other branches of the gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 I do not wish, Sir, to impair the 
 power of the President, as it stands 
 written down in the Constitution, and 
 as great and good men have hitherto 
 exercised it. In this, as in other re- 
 spects, I am for the Constitution as it is. 
 But 1 will not acquiesce in the reversal 
 of all just ideas of government; I will 
 not degrade the character of popular 
 representation; I will not blindly con- 
 fide, where all experience admonishes 
 nift to be jealous ; I will not trust execu- 
 tive power, vested in the hands of a 
 single magistrate, to be the guardian of 
 liberty. 
 
 Having claimed for the executive the 
 esfiecial guardian.ship of the Constitu- 
 tion, the Protest proceeds to present a 
 Bumniary view of the powers which are 
 supposed to be conferred on the execu- 
 tive by tliat instrument. And it is to 
 
 this part of the message, Sir, that 1 
 would, more than to all others, call the 
 particular attention of the Senate. I 
 confess that it was only upon careful re- 
 perusal of the paper that I perceived the 
 extent to which its assertions of power 
 reach. I do not speak now of the Pres- 
 ident's claims of power as opposed .o 
 legislative authority, but of his opinions 
 as to his oyra authority, duty, and re- 
 sponsibility, as connected with all other 
 officers under the government. He is 
 of opinion that the whole executive 
 power Ls vested in him, and that he is 
 responsible for its entire exercise; that 
 among the duties imposed on him is 
 that of "taking care that the laws be 
 faithfully executed " ; and that, " being 
 thus made responsible for the entire ac- 
 tion of the executive department, it is 
 but reasonable that the power of ap- 
 pointing, overseeing, and controlling 
 those who execute the laws, a power in 
 its nature executive, should remain in 
 his hands. It is, therefore, not only 
 his right, but the Constitution makes it 
 his duty, to ' nominate, and, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Sen- 
 ate, appoint,' all 'officers of the United 
 States whose appointments are not in 
 the Constitution otherwise provided for,' 
 with a proviso that the appointment of 
 inferior otticers may be vested in the 
 President alone, in the courts of justice, 
 or in the heads of departments." 
 
 The first proposition, then, which the 
 Protest asserts, in regard to the Presi- 
 dent's powers as executive magistrate, 
 is, that, the general dutv' being imposed 
 on him by tlie Constitution of taking 
 care that the laws be faithfully exe- 
 cuted, he therehij becomes hi/nself respon- 
 sible for the conduct of every person em- 
 ploijed in the government ; " for the entire 
 action," as the paper expresses it, "of 
 the executive department." This. Sir, 
 is very dangerous logic. I reject the in- 
 ference altogether. No such responsibil- 
 ity, nor any thing like it, follows from 
 the general provision of the Constitution, 
 making it his duty to see the laws exe- 
 cuted. If it did, we should have, in 
 fact, but one officer in the whole govern 
 ment. The President would be every 
 
THE PRESIDENTLVL PROTEST. 
 
 387 
 
 body. And the Protest assumes to the 
 President this whole responsibility for 
 every other officer, for the very purpose 
 of making the President everybody, of 
 annihilating every thing like indepen- 
 dence, responsibility, or character, in 
 all other public agents. The whole re- 
 sponsibility is assumed, in order that it 
 may be more plausibly argued that all 
 officers ot government are not agents of 
 tlie law, but the President's agents, and 
 therefore responsible to him alone. If 
 he be responsible for the conduct of all 
 officers, and they be responsible to him 
 only, then it may be maintained that 
 such officers are but his own agents, his 
 substitutes, his deputies. The first 
 thing to be done, therefore, is to as- 
 sume the responsibility for all ; and this 
 you will perceive, Sir, is done, in the 
 fullest manner, in the passages which I 
 have read. Having thus assumed for 
 the President the entire responsibility 
 of the whole government, the Protest 
 advances boldly to its conclusion, and 
 claims, at once, absolute pow'er over all 
 individuals in office, as being merely 
 the President's agents. This is the 
 language: " The whole executive power 
 being vested in the Presi-dent, who is 
 responsible for its exercise, it is a neces- 
 sary consequence that he should have 
 a right to employ agents of his own 
 choice to aid him in the performance of 
 his duties, and to discharge them when 
 he is no longer willing to be responsible 
 for their acts." 
 
 This, Sir, completes the work. This 
 handsomely rounds off the whole exec- 
 utive system of executive authority. 
 First, the President has the whole 
 responsibility; and then, being thus 
 responsible for all, he has, and ought 
 to have, the whole power. We have 
 heard of political unila, and our Amer- 
 ican executive, as here represented, is 
 indeed a unit. We have a charmingly 
 simple government! Instead of many 
 officers, in different departments, each 
 having appropriate duties, and each re- 
 sponsible for his own duties, we are 
 so fortunate as to have to deal with but 
 one officer. The President carries on 
 the government; all the rest are but 
 
 sub-contractors. Sir, whatever name 
 we give him, we have but one execu- 
 tive OFFICER. A Briareus sits in the 
 centre of our system, and with his hun- 
 dred hands touches every thing, moves 
 every thing, controls every thing. I 
 ask. Sir, Is this republicanism? Is 
 this a government of laws? Is this 
 legal responsibility? 
 
 According to the Protest, the very 
 duties which every officer under the 
 government performs are the duties of 
 the President himself. It says that the 
 President has a right to eiriploy agents 
 of his own choice, to aid him in the per- 
 formance of HIS duties. 
 
 Mr. President, if these doctrines be 
 true, it is idle for us any longer to talk 
 about any such thing as a government 
 of laws. We have no government of 
 laws, not even the semblance or shadow 
 of it; we have no legal responsibility. 
 AVe have an executive, consisting of one 
 person, wielding all official power, and 
 which is, to every effectual purixise, 
 completely irresponsible. The President 
 declares that he is " responsible for the 
 entire action of the executive depart- 
 ment." Responsible? What docs he, 
 mean by being "responsible"? Does 
 he mean legal responsibility? Certainly 
 not. iSo such thing. Legal responsi- 
 bility signifies liability to punishment 
 for misconduct or maleadministration. 
 But the Protest does not mean thac the 
 Pi'esident is liable to be impeached ana 
 punished if a secretary of state should 
 commit treason, if a collector of the cus- 
 toms should be guilty of bribery, or if 
 a treasurer should embezzle the public 
 money. It does not mean, and cannot 
 mean, that he should be answerable for 
 any such crime or such delinquency. 
 What then, is its notion of that re- 
 .^ponsibilili/ which it says the President 
 is under for all officers, and which au- 
 thorizes him to consider all officers as 
 his own personal agents? Sir, it is 
 merely responsibility to public opin- 
 ion. It is a liability to be blamed; it 
 is the chance of becoming unpopu- 
 lar, the danger of losing a re-election. 
 Nothing else is meant in the world. 
 It is the hazard of failing in any at» 
 
388 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 tempt or enterprise of ambition. This 
 is all the responsibility to which the 
 doctrines of the Protest hold the Presi- 
 dent subject. 
 
 It is precisely the responsibility under 
 wliich Cromwell acted when he dis- 
 persed Parliament, telling its members, 
 not in so many words, indeed, that they 
 disobeyed the will of their constituents, 
 but telling them that the people were 
 sick of them, and that he drove them 
 out " for the glory of God and the good 
 of the nation." It is precisely the 
 responsibility upon which Bonaparte 
 broke up the popular assembly of 
 France. I do not mean, Sir, certainly, 
 by these illustrations, to insinuate de- 
 signs of violent usurpation against the 
 President; far from it; but I do mean 
 to maintain, that such responsibility as 
 that with which the Protest clothes him 
 is no legal responsibility, no consti- 
 tutional responsibility, no republican 
 responsibility, but a mere liability to 
 loss of office, loss of character, and loss 
 of fame, if he sljall choose to violate 
 the laws and overturn the liberties of 
 the country. It is such a responsibility 
 as leaves every thing in his discretion 
 and his pleasure. 
 
 Sir, it exceeds human belief that any 
 man should put sentiments such as this 
 paper contains into a public communi- 
 cation from the President to the Senate. 
 They are sentiments which give us all 
 one master. The Protest asserts an 
 absolute right to remove all persons 
 from office at pleasure; and for what 
 reason? Because they are incompetent? 
 Because they are incapable? Because 
 they are remiss, negligent, or inatten- 
 tive? Xo, Sir; these are not the rea- 
 sons. But he may discharge them, one 
 and all, simply because " he is no 
 longer willing to be responsible for 
 their acts"! It insists on an absolute 
 right in the President to direct and con- 
 irul every act of every Officer of the 
 government, except the judges. It as- 
 serts this right of direct control over 
 and over again. The President may go 
 into the treasury, among the auditors 
 and comptrollers, and direct them how 
 to si;ttle every man's account; what 
 
 abatements to make from one, what 
 additions to another. He may go into 
 the custom-house, among collectors and 
 appraisers, and may control estimates, 
 reductions, and apjiraisements. It is 
 true that these officers are sworn to dis- 
 charge the duties of their respective 
 offices honestly and fairly, according to 
 their own best abilities; it is true, that 
 many of them are liable to indictment 
 for official misconduct, and others re- 
 sponsible, in suits of individuals, for 
 damages and penalties, if such official 
 misconduct be proved; but notwith- 
 standing all this, the Protest avers that 
 all these olficers are but the President's 
 agents ; that they are but aiding hijn in 
 the discharge of his duties; that he is 
 responsible for their conduct, and that 
 they are removable at his will and 
 pleasure. And it is under this view 
 of his own authority that the President 
 calls the Secretaries his Secretaries, not 
 once only, but repeatedly. After half 
 a century's administration of this gov- 
 ernment, Sir; — after we have endeav- 
 ored, by statute upon statute, and by 
 provision following provision, to defiuo 
 and limit official authority; to assign 
 particular duties to particular public 
 servants; to define those duties; to 
 create penalties for their violation ; to 
 adjust accurately the responsibility of 
 each agent witli his own powers and his 
 own duties; to establish the prevalence 
 of equal rule; to make the law, as far 
 as possible, every thing, and individual 
 will, as far as possible, nothing; — after 
 all this, the astounding assertion rings 
 in our ears, that, throughout the whole 
 range of official agency, in its smallest 
 ramifications as well as in its larger 
 ma.sses, there is but oxF rksponsi- 
 
 BILITY, ONE DISCRETION, ONE WILl! 
 
 True indeed is it. Sir, if these senti- 
 ments be maintained. — true indeed is 
 it that a President of the United States 
 may well repeat from Napoleon what 
 he repeated from Louis the Fourteenth, 
 "I am the state"! 
 
 The argument by which the writer ol 
 the Protest endeavors to establish the 
 President's claim to this vast mass of 
 accumulated authority, is founded on 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 389 
 
 the provision of the Constitution that 
 the executive power shall be vested in 
 the President. No doubt the executive 
 power is vested in tlie President ; but 
 what and how much executive power, 
 and how limited ? To this question I 
 should answer, "Look to the Coustitu-* 
 tiou, and see ; examine the particulars 
 of the grant, and learn what that exec- 
 utive power is which is given to the 
 President, either by express words or 
 by necessary implication." But so the 
 writer of this Protest does not reason. 
 lie takes these words of the Constitu- 
 tion as being, of themselves, a general 
 original grant of all executive power to 
 the President, subject only to such ex- 
 press limitations as the Constitution 
 prescribes. This is clearly the writer's 
 view of the subject, unless, indeed, he 
 goes behind the Constitution altogether, 
 as some expressions would intimate, to 
 search elsewhere for sources of execu- 
 tive power. Thus, the Protest says 
 that it is not only the right of the Presi- 
 dent, but that the Constitution makes 
 it his duty, to appoint persons to office ; 
 as if the right existed before the Consti- 
 tution had created the duty. It speaks, 
 too, of the power of removal, not as a 
 power granted by the Constitution, but 
 expressly as "an original executive 
 power, left unchecked by the Constitu- 
 tion." How original? Coming from 
 what source higlier than the Constitu- 
 tion? I should be glad to know how 
 the President gets possession of any 
 power by a title earlier, or more origi- 
 nal, than the grant of the Constitution; 
 or what is meant by an original power, 
 which the President possesses, and 
 which the Constitution has left un- 
 checked in his hands. The truth is. 
 Sir, most assuredly, that the writer of 
 the Protest, in these passages, was 
 reasoning upon the British constitution, 
 and not upon the Constitution of the 
 United States. Indeed, he professes to 
 found himself on authority drawn from 
 the constitution of England. I will 
 read. Sir, the whole passage. It is 
 this : — 
 
 " In strict accordance with this principle, 
 the power of removal, wiiich, like that of 
 
 appointment, is an original executive power, 
 is left unchecked by the Constitution in re- 
 lation to all executive officers, for wliose 
 conduct the President is responsible ; while 
 it is taken from him in relation to judicial 
 officers, for wiiose acts he is not responsi- 
 ble. In the government from which many of 
 the fuudamentdl princijiles of our system are 
 derived, the head of the executive dc/jcirtment 
 originally had power to appoint and remove at 
 will all ojiicers, executive and judicial. It 
 was to take the judges out of this general 
 power of removal, and thus make them 
 independent of the executive, that the ten- 
 ure of their offices was changed to good 
 behavior. Nor is it conceivable why they 
 are placed, in our Constitution, upon a 
 tenure different from that of all other 
 officers appointed by the executive, unless 
 it be for the same purpose." 
 
 ]Mr. President, I do most solemnly 
 protest (if I, too, may be permitted to 
 make a protest) against this mode of 
 reasoning. The analogy between the 
 British constitution and ours, in this 
 respect, is not close enough to guide us 
 safely; it can only mislead us. It has 
 entirely misled the writer of the Pro- 
 test. The President is made to argue, 
 upon this subject, as if he had some 
 rijrht anterior to the Constitution, which 
 right is by that instrument checked, in 
 some respects, and in other respects 13 
 left unchecked, but which, nevertheless, 
 stiU derives its being from another 
 som-ce; just as the British king had, 
 in the early ages of the monarchy, an 
 uncontrolled right of appointing and 
 removing all officers at pleasure, but 
 which right, so far as it respects the 
 judges, has since been checked and con- 
 trolled by act of Parliament; the right 
 being original and ihherent, the check 
 only imposed by law. Sir, I distrust 
 altogether British precedents, author- 
 ities, and analogies, on such questions 
 as this. We are not inquiring how 
 far our Constitution has imposed checks 
 on a pre-existing authority. AVe are 
 inquiring what extent of power that 
 Constitution has granted. The grant of 
 power, the whole source of power, as 
 well as the restrictions and limitations 
 which are imposed on it, is made in and 
 by the Constitution. It has no other 
 
390 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 origin. And it is this, Sir, ■which dis- 
 tinguishes our system so very widely 
 and materially from the systems of 
 Europe. Our governments are limited 
 governments; limited in their origin, 
 in their very creation ; limited, because 
 none but specific powers were ever 
 g^-anted, either to any department of 
 government, or to the whole: theirs are 
 limited, whenever limited at all, by rea- 
 son of restraints imposed at different 
 times on governments originally un- 
 limited and despotic. Oiu' American 
 questions, therefore, must be discussed, 
 reasoned on, decided, and settled, on 
 the appropriate principles of our own 
 constitutions, and not by inapplicable 
 precedents and loose analogies di-awn 
 from foreign states. 
 
 ]Mr. President, in one of the French 
 comedies, as you know, in which the 
 dulness and prolixity of legal argument 
 is intended to be severely satirized, 
 while the advocate is tediously gi-oping 
 among ancient lore having nothing to 
 do with his case, the judge grows impa- 
 tient, and at List cries out to him to 
 comedown to the flood ! I really wish. 
 Sir, that the writer of this Protest, since 
 he was discussing matters of the highest 
 importance to us as Americans, and 
 which arise out of our own peculiar 
 Constitution, had kept himself, not only 
 on this side the general deluge, but also 
 on this side the Atlantic. I desire that 
 the broad waves of that wide sea should 
 continue to roll between us and the in- 
 fluence of those foreign principles and 
 foreign precedents which he so eagerly 
 adopts. 
 
 In asserting power for an American 
 President, I prefer that he should at- 
 tempt to maintain his assertions on 
 American reasons. I know not. Sir, 
 who the writer was (I wish I did) ; but 
 whoever he was, it is manifest that he 
 argues this part of his case, throughout, 
 on the principles of the constitution of 
 England. It is true, that, in England, 
 the king is regarded as the original 
 fountain of all honor and all office ; and 
 that anciently, indeed, he possessed all 
 political power of every kind. It is 
 true that this mass of authority, in the 
 
 progress of that government, has been 
 diminished, restrained, and controlled, 
 by charters, by immimities. h\ grants, 
 and by various modifications, which the 
 friends of liberty have, at different pe- 
 riods, been able to obtain or to impose. 
 All liberty, as we know, all popular 
 privileges, as indeed the word itself im- 
 ports, were formerly considered as favors 
 and concessions from the monarch. But 
 whenever and wherever civil freedom 
 could get a foothold, and could maintain 
 itself, these favors were turned into 
 rights. Before and dui'ing the reigns 
 of the princes of the Stuart family, they 
 were acknowledged only as favors or 
 privileges graciously allowed, although, 
 even then, whenever opportunity of- 
 fered, as in the instance to which I 
 alluded just now, they were contend.id 
 for as rights ; and by the Revolution of 
 1688 they were acknowledged as the 
 rights of Englishmen, by the prince 
 who then ascended the throne, and as 
 the condition on which he was allowed 
 to sit upon it. But with us there never 
 was a time when we acknowledged 
 original, unrestrained, sovereign power 
 over us. Our constitutions are not 
 made to limit and restrain pre-existing 
 authority. They are the instruments by 
 which the people confer power on their 
 own servants. If I may use a legal 
 phrase, the people are grantors, not 
 gi-antees. They give to the government, 
 and to each branch of it, all the power 
 it possesses, or can possess ; and what is 
 not given they retain. In England, be- 
 fore her revolution, and in tlie rest of 
 Europe since, if we would know the ex- 
 tent of libei'ty or popular right, we mu.st 
 go to grants, to charters, to allowances, 
 and indulgences. But with us, we go 
 to grants and to constitutions to learn 
 the extent of the powers of governni'^nt. 
 No political power is more original than 
 the Constitution; none is possessed 
 which is not there gi'anted; and the 
 grant, and the limitations in the grant, 
 are in the same instrument. 
 
 The powers, therefore, belonging to 
 any branch of our government, are to 
 be construed and settled, not by remot« 
 analogies drawn from other gpveru 
 
THE PKESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 391 
 
 ments, but from the words of the grant 
 Itself, in their plain sense and necessary 
 import, and according to an interpreta- 
 tion consistent witla our own history and 
 the spirit of our own institutions. I 
 will never agree that a President of the 
 United States holds the whole undivided 
 power of office in his owu hands, upon 
 tlie theory tliat he is responsible for the 
 entire action of the whole body of those 
 engaged in carrying on the government 
 and executing the laws. Such a respon- 
 sibility is purely ideal, delusive, and 
 vain. There is, there can be, no sub- 
 stantial responsibility, any further than 
 every individual is answerable, not 
 merely in his reputation, not merely in 
 the opinion of mankind, but to the law, 
 for the faithful discharge of his own ap- 
 propriate duties. Again and again we 
 hear it said that the I'resident is respon- 
 sible to the American people ! that he is 
 responsible to the bar of public opinion ! 
 For whatever he does, he assumes ac- 
 countability to the American people! 
 For whatever he omits, he expects to be 
 brought to the high bar of public opin- 
 ion ! And this is thought enough for a 
 limited, restrained, republican govern- 
 ment! an undefined, undefinable, ideal 
 responsibility to the public judgment! 
 
 Sir, if aU this mean any thing, if it be 
 not empty sound, it means no less than 
 that the President may do any thing and 
 every thing which he may expect to be 
 tolerated in doing. He may go just so 
 far as he thinks it safe to go; and Crom- 
 weU and Bonaparte went no farther. I 
 ask again. Sir, is this legal responsi- 
 bility? Is this the true nature of a gov- 
 ernment with written laws and limited 
 powers? And allow me, Sir, to ask, 
 too, if an executive magistrate, while 
 professing to act under the Constitution, 
 is restrained only by this responsibility 
 to public opinion, what prevents him, 
 on the same responsibility, from propos- 
 ing a change in that Constitution? Why 
 may he not say, " I am about to intro- 
 duce new forms, new principles, and a 
 new spirit; I am about to try a political 
 experiment on a great scale; and when 
 1 get through with it, I shall be respon- 
 sible to the American people, I shall be 
 
 answerable to the bar of public opin- 
 
 ion 
 
 '? 
 
 Connected, Sir, with the idea of this 
 aiiy and unreal responsibility to the 
 public is another sentiment, which of 
 late we hear frequently expressed; and 
 that is, that the President is the direct rep- 
 resentative of the American people. This 
 is declared in the Protest in so many 
 words. " The President," it says, " is 
 the direct representative of the American 
 people.''^ Xow, Sir, this is not the lan- 
 guage of the Constitution. The Con- 
 stitution nowhere calls him the repre- 
 sentative of the American people; still 
 less, their direct representative. It could 
 not do so witli the least propriety. He 
 is not chosen directly by the people, but 
 by a body of electors, some of wliom are 
 chosen by the peoj^le, and some of whom 
 are appointed by the State legislatures. 
 Where, then, is the authority for saying 
 tliat the President is the direct represent- 
 atice of the people ? The Constitution 
 calls the members of the other house 
 Representatives, and declares that they 
 shall be chosen by the people ; and there 
 are no other direct or immediate repre- 
 sentatives of the people in this gove^rn- 
 ment. The Constitution denominates 
 the President simply the President of 
 the United States; it points out the 
 complex mode of electing him, defines 
 his powers and duties, and imposes lim- 
 its and restraints on his authority. With 
 these powers and duties, and utider these 
 restraints, he becomes, wlien chosen, 
 President of the United States. That 
 is his character, and the denomination 
 of his office. How is it, then, that, on 
 this official character, thus cautiously 
 created, limited, and defined, he is to 
 engraft another and a very imposing 
 character, namely, the character of the di- 
 rect representative of the American people f 
 I hold this. Sir, to be mere assumption, 
 and dangerous assumption. If ho is 
 the representative of all the American 
 people, he is the only representative 
 which they all have. Nobody else i)re- 
 sumes to represent all the people. And 
 if he may be allowed to consider him- 
 self as the SOLE representative op 
 ALL TUE American people, and is to 
 
892 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL TROTESl 
 
 act under no other responsibility than 
 Buch as I have already described, then I 
 say, Sir, that the government (I will not 
 say the people) has already a master. 
 I deny the sentiment, therefore, and I 
 protest against the language; neither 
 the sentiment nor the language is to be 
 found in the Constitution of the coun- 
 try; and whoever is not satisfied to de- 
 scribe the powers of the President in 
 the language of the Constitution may 
 be justly suspected of being as little 
 satisfied with the powers themselves. 
 The President is President. His office 
 and his name ^' office are known, and 
 both are fixed and described by law. 
 Being commander of the army and 
 na^-y, holding the power of nominating 
 to office and removing from office, and 
 being by these powers the fountain of 
 all patronage and all favor, what does 
 he not become if he be allowed to super- 
 add to all this the character of single 
 representative of the American people? 
 Sir, he becomes what America has not 
 been accustomed to see, what this Con- 
 stitution has never created, and what I 
 cannot contemplate but with profound 
 alarm. He who may call himself the 
 single representative of a nation may 
 speak in the name of the nation, may 
 undertake to wield the power of the 
 nation; and who shall gainsay him in 
 whatsoever he chooses to pronounce to 
 be the nation's will? 
 
 I will now, Sir, ask leave to recapitu- 
 late the general doctrines of this Protest, 
 and to present them together. They 
 are, — 
 
 That neither branch of the legislature 
 can take up, or consider, for the purpose 
 of censure, any official act of the Presi- 
 dent, without some view to legislation 
 or impeachment; 
 
 That not only the passage, but the 
 discussion, of the resolution of the Sen- 
 ate of the 28th of March, was unauthor- 
 ized by the Constitution, and repugnant 
 to its provisions; 
 
 That the custody of the public treas- 
 ury always must be intrusted to the 
 executive; that Congress cannot take it 
 out of his hands, nor place it anywhere 
 except under such superintendents and 
 
 keepers as are appointed by him, re- 
 sponsible to him, and removable at his 
 will ; 
 
 That the whole executive power is m 
 the President, and that therefore the 
 duty of defending the integrity of the 
 Con.stitution results to htm from the very 
 nature of his office; and that the found- 
 ers of our republic have attested their 
 sense of the importance of this duty, 
 and, by expressing it in his official oath, 
 have given to it peculiar solemnity and 
 force ; 
 
 Tliat, as he is to take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed, he is there- 
 by made responsible for the entire action 
 of the executive department, with the 
 power of appointing, overseeing, and 
 controlling those who execute the laws; 
 
 That the power of removal from office, 
 like that of appointment, is an original 
 executive power, and is left in his hands 
 unchecked bj' the Constitution, except in 
 the case of judges; that, being respon- 
 sible for the exercise of the whole exec- 
 utive power, he has a right to employ 
 agents of his own choice to assist hijn in 
 the performance of his duties, and to 
 discharge them when he is no longer 
 willing to be responsible for their acts; 
 
 That the Secretaries are his Secre- 
 taries, and all persons appointed to of- 
 fices created by law, except the judges, 
 his agents, responsible to him, and re- 
 movable at his pleasure; 
 
 And, finally, that he is the direct rep- 
 resentatice of the American people. 
 
 Tliese, Sir, are .some of the leading 
 projiositions contained in the Protest; 
 and if they be true, then the government 
 under which we live is an elective mon- 
 archy. It is not yet absolute ; there are 
 yet some checks and limitations in the 
 Constitution and laws; but, in its es- 
 sential and prevailing character, it is an 
 elective monarchy. 
 
 Mr. President, I have spoken freely 
 of this Protest, and of the doctrines 
 \Yhich it advances; but I have spoken 
 deliberately. On these high questions 
 of constitutional law, respect for my 
 own character, as well as a solemn and 
 profound sense of duty, restrains me 
 from giving utterance to a single senti- 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL PROTEST. 
 
 o9;i 
 
 ment which does not flow from entire 
 conviction. I feel that I am not wrong. 
 I feel that an iuboru and inbred love of 
 constitutional liberty, and some study 
 of our political institutions, have not on 
 this occasion misled me. But I have 
 desired to say nothing that sliould give 
 pain to the chief magistrate personally. 
 I have not souglit to fix arrows in his 
 breast; but I beliin-e him mistaken, al- 
 together mistaken, in the sentiments 
 which he has expressed; and I must 
 concur with others in placing on the 
 records of the Senate my disapprobation 
 of those sentiments. On a vote which 
 is to remain so long as any proceeding of 
 the Senate shall last, and on a question 
 which can never cease to be important 
 while the Constitution of the country 
 endures, I have desired to make public 
 my reasons. They will now be known, 
 and I submit them to the judgment of 
 the present and of after times. Sir, the 
 occasion is full of interest. It cannot 
 
 pass off without leaving strong impres- 
 sions on the character of public men. 
 A collision has taken place which I 
 couhl have most anxiously wished to 
 avoid; but it was not to be shunned. 
 We have not sought this controversy; it 
 has met us, and been forced upon us. 
 In my judgment, the law has been dis- 
 regarded, and the Constitution trans- 
 gressed; the fortress of liberty has been 
 assaulted, ar.d circumstances have placed 
 the Senate in the breach; and, although 
 we may perish in it, I know we shall 
 not fly from it. But I am fearless of 
 consequences. We shall hold on, Sir, 
 and hold out, till the people themselves 
 come to its defence. We shall raise the 
 alarm, and maintain the post, till they 
 whose right it is shall decide whether 
 the Senate be a faction, wantonly re- 
 sisting lawful power, or whether it be 
 opposing, with firmness and patriotism, 
 violations of liberty and inroads upon 
 the Constitution. 
 
THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 16th OF FEB- 
 RUARY, 1835, ON THE PASSAGE OF THE BH.L, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO 
 REPEAL THE FIRST AND SECOND SECTIONS OF THE ACT TO LIMIT THE 
 TERM OF SERVICE OF CERTAIN OFFICERS THEREIN NAMED." 
 
 Mr. President, — The professed ob- 
 ject of this bill is the reduction of execu- 
 tive influence and patronage. I concur 
 in the propi-iety of that object. Having 
 no wish to diminish or to control, in tlie 
 slightest degree, the constitutional and 
 legal authority of the presidential ofiice, 
 I yet think that the indirect and rapidly 
 increasing influence which it possesses, 
 and which arises from the power of 
 bestowing office and of taking it away 
 again at pleasm-e, and from the manner 
 in which that power seems now to be 
 systematically exercised, is productive 
 of serious evils. 
 
 The extent of the patronage spring- 
 ing from this power of appointment and 
 removal is so great, that it brings a dan- 
 gerous mass of private and personal in- 
 terest into operation in all great public 
 elections and public questions. This is 
 a mischief which has reached, already, 
 an alarming height. The principle of 
 republican governments, we are taught, 
 is public virtue; and whatever tends 
 either to corrupt this principle, to de- 
 base it, or to weaken its force, tends, in 
 the same degree, to the final overthrow 
 of such governments. Our representa- 
 tive systems suppose, that, in exercising 
 the high riglit of suffrage, the greatest 
 of all political rights, and in forming 
 opinions on great public measures, men 
 will act conscientiously, under the influ- 
 ence of public principle and patriotic 
 duty; and that, in supporting or oppos- 
 
 ing men or measures, there will be a 
 general prevalence of honest, intelligent 
 judgment and manly independence. 
 These presumptions lie at the founda- 
 tion of all hope of maintaining gov- 
 ernments entirely popular. Whenever 
 personal, individual, or selfish motives 
 influence the conduct of individuals on 
 public questions, they affect the safety 
 of the whole system. When these mo- 
 tives run deep and wide, and come in 
 serious conflict with higher, purer, and 
 more patriotic purposes, they greatly 
 endanger that system; and all will ad- 
 mit that, if they become general and 
 overwhelming, so that all public prin- 
 ciple is lost sight of, and every election 
 becomes a mere scramble for oflice, the 
 system inevitably must fall. Every 
 wise man, in and out of government, 
 will endeavor, therefore, to promote the 
 ascendency of public virtue and public 
 principle, aiid to restrain as far as prac- 
 ticable, in the actual operation of our 
 institutions, the influence of selfish and 
 private interests. 
 
 I concur with those who think, that, 
 looking to the present, and looking also 
 to the future, and regarding all the 
 probabilities that await us in reference 
 to the cliaractcr and qualities of those 
 who may fill the executive chair, it is 
 important to the stability of government 
 and the welfare of the people that there 
 sluiuld be a check to the progress of 
 official influence and patronage. The 
 
THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 
 
 395 
 
 niilimited power to grant office, and to 
 take it away, gives a commaml over the 
 hopes and fears of a vast n)ultitude of 
 men. It is generally true, that he who 
 controls another man's means of living 
 controls his will. Where there are fa- 
 voi's to be granted, there are usually 
 enough to solicit for them; and when 
 favors once granted may be withdrawn 
 at pleasure, there is ordinarily little 
 security for personal independence of 
 character. The power of giving office 
 thus affects the fears of all who are in, 
 and the hopes of all who are out. 
 Tliose who are out endeavor to distin- 
 guish themselves by active political 
 friendship, by warm pergonal devotion, 
 by clamorous support of men in whose 
 hands is the power of reward; while 
 those who are in ordinarily take care 
 that others shall not surpass them in 
 such qualities or such conduct as are 
 most likely to secure favor. They re- 
 solve not to be outdone in any of the 
 works of partisanship. The conse- 
 quence of all this is obvious. A com- 
 petition ensues, not of patriotic labors; 
 not of rough and severe toils for the 
 public good; not of manliness, inde- 
 pendence, and public spirit; but of 
 complaisance, of indiscriminate support 
 of executive measures, of pliant sub- 
 serviency and gross adulation. AU 
 throng and rush together to the altar 
 of man-worship; and there they offer 
 sacrifices, and pour out libations, till 
 the thick fumes of their incense turn 
 their own heads, and tuni, also, the 
 head of him who is the object of their 
 idolatry. 
 
 The existence of parties in popular 
 governments is not to be avoided ; and 
 if they are formed on constitutional 
 questions, or in regard to great meas- 
 ures of public policy, and do not run to 
 excessive length, it may be admitted 
 that, on the whole, they do no great 
 harm. But the patronage of office, the 
 power of bestowing place and emolu- 
 ments, creates parties, not upon any 
 princijile or any measure, but upon the 
 Bingle ground of personal interest. Un- 
 der the direct influence of this motive, 
 they form round a leader, and they go 
 
 for " the spoils of victoiy." And if the 
 party chieftain becomes the national 
 chieftain, he is still but too apt to con- 
 sider all who have opposed him as ene- 
 mies to be punished, and all who have 
 supported him as friends to be rewarded. 
 Blind devotion to party, and to the head 
 of a party, thus takes place of the senti- 
 ment of generous patriotism and a high 
 and exalted sense of public duty. 
 
 Let it not be said, Sir, that the dan- 
 ger from executive patronage cannot be 
 great, since the persons who hold office, 
 or can hold office, constitute so small a 
 portion of the whole people. 
 
 In the first place, it is to be remem- 
 bered that patronage acts, not only on 
 those who actually possess office, but on 
 those also who expect it, or hope for it; 
 and in the next place, office-holders, by 
 their very situation, their public station, 
 their connection with the business of 
 individuals, their activity, their ability 
 to help or to hurt according to their 
 pleasure, their acquaintance with public 
 affairs, and their zeal and devotion, ex- 
 ercise a degree of influence out of all 
 proportion to their numbers. 
 
 Sir, we cannot disregard our own ex- 
 perience. AVe cannot shut our eyes to 
 what is around us and upon us. No 
 candid man can deny that a great, a 
 very great change has taken place, 
 within a few years, in the practice of 
 the executive government, which has 
 produced a corresponding change in our 
 political condition. No one can deny 
 that office, of every kind, is now sought 
 with extraordinary avidity, and that the 
 condition, well understood to be attached 
 to every officer, high or low, is indis- 
 criminate support of executive measures 
 and implicit obedience to executive will. 
 For these reasons. Sir, I am for arrest- 
 ing the further progress of this execu- 
 tive patronage, if we can arrest it; T am 
 for staying the further contagion of this 
 plague. 
 
 The bill proposes two measures. One 
 is to alter the duration of certain offices, 
 now limited absolutely to four years; so 
 that the limitation shall be qualified or 
 conditional. If the officer is in default, 
 if his accounts are not settled, if he re- 
 
396 
 
 THE APrOINTIXG AND REMOVING POWER. 
 
 tains or misapplies the public money, 
 iufoimatioii is to be given thereof, and 
 thereupon his commission is to cease. 
 But if his accounts are all regularly set- 
 tled, if he collects and disburses the 
 public money faitlifully, then he is to 
 remain in office, miless, for some other 
 cause, the President sees fit to remove 
 him. This is the provision of the bill. 
 It applies only to certain enumerated 
 officers, who may be called accounting 
 officers; that is to say, officers who re- 
 ceive and disburse the public money. 
 Formerly, all these officers held their 
 places at the pleasure of the President. 
 If he saw no just cause for removing 
 them, they continued in their situations, 
 no fixed period being assigned for the ex- 
 piration of their commissions. But the 
 act of 1820 limited the commissions of 
 these officers to four years. At the end 
 of four years, they were to go out, witli- 
 out any removal, however well they 
 might have conducted themselves, or 
 however useful to the public their fur- 
 ther continuance in office might be. 
 They might be nominated again, or 
 might not; but their commissions ex- 
 pired. 
 
 Xow, Sir, I freely admit that consid- 
 erable benefit has arisen from this law. 
 I agree that it has, in some instances, 
 secured promptitude, diligence, and a 
 sense of responsibility. These were 
 the benefits w^hich those who passed the 
 law expected from it; and these benefits 
 have, in some measure, been realized. 
 But I think that this change in the ten- 
 ure of office, together with some good, 
 has brought along a far more than 
 equivalent amount of evil. By the 
 operation of tliis law, the President can 
 deprive a man of office without taking 
 the responsibility of removing him. 
 The law itself vacates the office, and 
 gives the means of rewarding a friend 
 without the exercise of the power of re- 
 moval at all. Here is increased power, 
 with diminished responsibility. Here 
 is a still greater dependence, for the 
 means of living, on executive favor, 
 and, of course, a new dominion acquired 
 over opinion and over conduct. The 
 power of removal is, or at least formerly 
 
 was, a suspected and odious ]-ower, 
 Public opinion would not always toler- 
 ate it; and still less frequently did it 
 approve it. Something of character, 
 something of the resjiect of the intelh- 
 gent and patriotic part of the commu- 
 nity, was lost by every instance of its 
 unnecessary exercise. This was some 
 restraint. But the law of 1820 took it 
 all away. It vacated offices periodically, 
 by its own operation, and thus added to 
 the power of removal, which it left still 
 existing in full force, a new and ex- 
 traordinary facility for the extension of 
 patronage, influence, and favoritism. 
 
 I would ask every member of the Sen- 
 ate if he does not perceive, daily, effects 
 which may be fairly traced to this cause. 
 Does he not see a union of purpose, a 
 devotion to power, a co-operation in 
 action, among all who hold office, quite 
 unknown in the earlier periods of the 
 government? Does he not behold, every 
 hour, a stronger development of the 
 principle of personal attachment, and a 
 corresponding diminution of genuine 
 and generous public feeling? Was in- 
 discriminate support of party measures, 
 was unw-avering fealty, was regular suit 
 and service, ever before esteemed such 
 important and essential parts of official 
 duty? 
 
 Sir, the theory of our institutions is 
 plain ; it is, that government is an agency 
 created for the good of the people, and 
 that every person in office is the agent 
 and servant of the people. Offices are 
 created, not for the benefit of those who 
 are to fill them, but for the public con- 
 venience; aiid tlie}' ought to be no more 
 in number, nor should higher salaries 
 be attached to them, than tlie public 
 service requires. This is the theory. 
 But the difficulty in practice is, to pre- 
 vent a direct reversal of all this; to pre- 
 vent public offices from being considered 
 as intended for the use and emolument of 
 those who can obtain them. There is a 
 headlong tendency to this, and it is ne- 
 cessary to restrain it by wise and effect- 
 ive legislation. There is still another, 
 and perhaps a greatly more mischievoua 
 result, of extensive patronage in the 
 hands of a single magistrate, to which I 
 
THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWEll. 
 
 391 
 
 have already incidentally alluded; and 
 that is, that men in olHce have begun to 
 think tlieuiselves mere agents and ser- 
 vants of the appointing power, and not 
 agents of tlie government or the country. 
 It is, in an especial manner, important, 
 if it be practicable, to apply some cor- 
 rective to tliis kind of feeling and opin- 
 ion. It is necessary to bring back 
 public officers to the conviction, that 
 they belong to the country, and not to 
 any administration, nor to any one man. 
 The army is tlie army of the country; 
 the navy is the navy of the countiy; nei- 
 ther of them is either the mere instru- 
 ment of the administration for the time 
 being, nor of him who is at the head 
 of it. The post-office, the land-olRce, 
 the custom-house, are, in like manner, 
 institutions of the country, established 
 for the good of the people : and it may 
 well ahirm the lovers of free nistitutions, 
 when all the offices in these several de- 
 partments are spoken of, in high places, 
 as being but " spoils of victory," to be 
 enjoyed by tliose who are successful in a 
 contest, in wliich they profess this grasp- 
 ing of the spoils to have been the object 
 of their efforts. 
 
 This part of the bill, therefore, Sir, 
 is a subject for fair comparison. We 
 have gained something, doubtless, by 
 limiting the commissions of these offi- 
 cers to four years. But have we gained 
 as much as we have lost? And may 
 not tlie good be preserved, and the evil 
 still avoided? Is it not enough to say, 
 that if, at the end of four years, moneys 
 are retained, accounts unsettled, or other 
 duties unperformed, the office shall be 
 held to be vacated, without any positive 
 act of removal? 
 
 For one, I think the balance of ad- 
 vantage is decidedly in favor of the 
 present bill. I think it will make men 
 more dependent on their own good con- 
 duct, and less dependent on the will of 
 others. I believe it will cause them to 
 regard their country more, their own 
 duty more, and the favor of individuals 
 less. I think it will contribute to offi- 
 cial respectability, to freedom of opin- 
 ion, to independence of character; and I 
 think it will tend, in no small degree, to 
 
 prevent the mixture of selfish and per- 
 sonal motives with the exercise of hijrh 
 political duties. It will promcjte true 
 and genuine republicanism, by causing 
 the opinion of the people respecting the 
 measures of government, and the men 
 in government, to be formed and ex- 
 pressed without fear or favor, acd with 
 a more entire regard to their true a: d 
 real merits or demerits. It will be, so 
 far as its effects reach, an auxiliary to 
 patriotism and public virtue, in their 
 warfare against sellishness and cupidity. 
 
 The second check on executive patron- 
 age contained in this bill is of still 
 greater importance than the first. This 
 jii'ovision is, that, whenever the Presi- 
 dent removes any of these officers from 
 office, he shall state to the Senate the 
 reasons for such removal. This part of 
 the bill has been opposed, both on con- 
 stitutional gi'ounds and on grounds of 
 expediency. 
 
 The bill, it is to be observed, ex- 
 pressly recognizes and admits the actual 
 existence of the power of removal. I 
 do not mean to deny, and the bill does 
 not deny, that, at the present moment, 
 the President may remove these offi- 
 cers at will, because the early decision 
 adopted that construction, and the laws 
 have since uniformly sanctioned it. 
 The law of ISi'O, intended to be re- 
 pealed by this bill, expressly affirms 
 the power. I consider it, therefore, a 
 settled point; settled by construc*;ion, 
 settled by precedent, settled by the 
 practice of the government, and settled 
 by statute. At the same time, after 
 considering the question again and 
 again within the last six years, I am 
 very willing to say, that, in my delib- 
 erate judgment, the original decision 
 was wrong. I cannot but think that 
 those who denied the power in 1789 
 had the best of the argument; and yet 
 1 will not say that I know myself so 
 thoroughly as to affirm, that this opin- 
 ion may not have been produced, in 
 some measure, by that abuse of the 
 power which has been passing before 
 our eyes for several years. It is possi- 
 ble tiiat this experience of the evil may 
 have affected my view of the constitu- 
 
a98 
 
 THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 
 
 tional argument. It appears to me, 
 however, after thorough and repeated 
 and conscientious examination, that an 
 erroneous interpretation was given to 
 the Constitution, in this respect, by the 
 decision of the first Congress; and I 
 will a.sk leave to state, shortly, the rea- 
 sons for that opinion, although there is 
 nothing in this bill which proposes to 
 disturb that decision. 
 
 The Constitution nowhere says one 
 word of the power of removal from 
 office, except in the case of conviction 
 on impeachment. Wherever the power 
 exists, therefore, except in cases of im- 
 peachment, it must exist as a construc- 
 tive or incidental power. If it exists 
 in the President alone, it must exist in 
 him because it is attached to something 
 else, or included in something else, or 
 results from something else, which is 
 granted to the President. There is cer- 
 tainly no specific grant; it is a power, 
 therefore, the existence of which, if 
 proved at all, is to be proved by infer- 
 ence and argument. In the only in- 
 stance in which the Constitution speaks 
 of removal from office, as I have already 
 said, it speaks of it as tlie exercise of 
 judicial power; that is to say, it speaks 
 of it as one part of the judgment of the 
 Senate, in cases of conviction on im- 
 peachment. No other mention is made, 
 in the whole instrument, of any power 
 of removal. Whence, then, is the power 
 derived to the President? 
 
 It is usually said, by those who main- 
 tain its existence in the single hands of 
 the President, that the power is derived 
 from that clause of the Constitution 
 which says, "The executive power 
 shall be vested in a President." The 
 power of removal, they argue, is, in its 
 nature, an executive power; and, as the 
 executive power is thus vested in the 
 l:*resident, the power of removal is neces- 
 sarily included. 
 
 It is true, that the Constitution de- 
 clares that tlie executive power shall 
 be vested in the President; but the 
 first question which then arises is, 
 What vt executive power? What is the 
 degree, and ichut are the limitations t Ex- 
 ecutive power is not a thing so well 
 
 known, and so accurately defined, as 
 that the written constitution of a 
 limited government can be supposed 
 to liave conferred it in the lump. 
 What is executive power? What aie 
 its boundaries V What model or exam- 
 ple had the framers of the Constitution 
 in their minds, when they spoke of 
 "executive power"? Did they mean 
 executive power as known in England, 
 or as known in France, or as known in 
 Russia? Did they take it as defined by 
 ^lontesquieu, by Burlamaqui, or by De 
 Loline? All these differ from one an- 
 other as to the extent of the executive 
 power of government. AMiat, then, waa 
 intended by "the executive power"? 
 Xow, Sir, I think it perfectly plain and 
 manifest, that, althougli the framers of 
 the Constitution meant to confer execu- 
 tive power on the President, yet they 
 meant to define and limit that power, 
 and to confer no more than they did 
 thus define and limit. When they say 
 it shall be vested in a President, they 
 mean that one magistrate, to be called 
 a President, shall hold the executive 
 authority; but they mean, further, that 
 he shall hold this authority according to 
 the grants and limitations of the Con- 
 stitution itself. 
 
 They did not intend, certainly, a 
 sweeping gift of prerogative. They did 
 not intend to grant to the President 
 whatever might be construed, or sup- 
 posed, or imagined to be executive 
 power; and the proof that they meant 
 no such thing is, that, immediately 
 after using these general words, they 
 proceed specifically to enumerate his 
 several distinct and particular authori- 
 ties; to fix and define them; to give 
 the Senate an essential control over the 
 exercise of some of them, and to leave 
 others uncontrolled. By the executive 
 power conferred on the President, the 
 Constitution means no more than that 
 portion which itself creates, and which 
 it qualifies, limits, and circumscribes. 
 
 A general survey of the frame of the 
 Constitution will satisfy us of this. 
 That instrument goes all along upon 
 the idea of dividing the powers of gov- 
 ernment, so far as practicable, into 
 
THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 
 
 399 
 
 three great departments. Tt describes 
 the powers and duties of these depart- 
 ments in an article allotted to each. 
 As first in importance and dignity, it 
 begins with the legislative department. 
 The first article of the Constitution, 
 therefore, connnences with the declara- 
 tion, that " all legislative power herein 
 granted shall be vested in a Congress of 
 the United States, which shall consist 
 of a Senate and House of Representa- 
 tives." The article goes on to prescribe 
 the manner in which Congress is to be 
 constituted and organized, and then pro- 
 ceeds to enumerate, specijicalli/, the poicers 
 intended to be granted ; and adds the gen- 
 eral clause, conferring such authority 
 as may be necessary to carry granted 
 powers into effect. Now, Sir, no man 
 doubts that this is a limited legislature; 
 that it possesses no powers but such as 
 are granted by express words or neces- 
 sary implication; and that it would be 
 quite preposterous to insist that Con- 
 gress possesses any particular legislative 
 power, merely because it is, in its 
 nature, a legislative body, if no grant 
 can be found for it in the Constitution 
 itself. 
 
 Then comes. Sir, the second article, 
 creating an executive power; and it 
 declares, that " the executive power 
 shall be vested in a President of the 
 United States." After providing for 
 the mode of choosing him, it immedi- 
 ately proceeds to enumerate, specifically, 
 the powers which he shall possess and 
 exercise, and the duties which he shall 
 perform. I consider the language of 
 this article, therefore, precisely analo- 
 gous to that in which the legislature is 
 created; that is to say, I understand the 
 Constitution as saying that " the execu- 
 tive power herein granted shall be vested 
 in a President of the United States." 
 
 In like manner, the third article, or 
 that which is intended to arrange the 
 judicial system, begins by declaring 
 that " the judicial power of the United 
 States shall be vested in one Supreme 
 Court, and in such inferior courts as 
 the Congress may, from time to time, 
 ordain and establi-sh." But these gen- 
 eral words do not show n-hal extent of 
 
 judicial power is vested in the courts of 
 the United States. All that is left to 
 be done, and is done, in the following 
 sections, by express and well-sjuarded 
 provisions. 
 
 I think, therefore. Sir, that very 
 great caution is to be u.sed, and the 
 ground well considered, before we ad- 
 mit that the President derives any dis- 
 tinct and specific power from those 
 general words which vest the executive 
 authority in him. The Constitution 
 itself does not rest satisfied with these 
 general words. It immediat(;ly goes 
 into particulars, and carefully enumer- 
 ates the several authorities which the 
 President shall possess. The very first 
 of the enumerated powers is the com- 
 mand of the army and navy. This, 
 most certainly, is an executive power. 
 And why is it particularly set down and 
 expressed, if any power was intended to 
 be gi-anted under the general words? 
 This would pass, if any thing would 
 pass, under those words. But enumer- 
 ation, specification, particularization, 
 was evidently the design of the framers 
 of the Constitution, in this as in other 
 parts of it. I do not, therefore, regard 
 the declaration that the executive power 
 shall be vested in a President as being 
 any grant at all; any more than the 
 declaration that the legislative power 
 shall be vested in Congress constitutes, 
 by itself, a grant of such power. In 
 the one case, as in the other, I think 
 the object was to describe and denomi- 
 nate the department, w hich should hold, 
 respectively, the legislative and the ex- 
 ecutive authority ; very much as we see, 
 in some of the State constitutions, that 
 the several articles are headed with the 
 titles " legislative power," " executive 
 power," "judicial power"; and this 
 entitling of the articles with the name 
 of the power has never been supposed, 
 of itself, to confer any authority what- 
 ever. It amounts to no more than 
 naming the departments. 
 
 If, then, the power of removal be 
 admitted to be an executive power, still 
 it must be sought for and found among 
 the enumerated executive powers, or 
 fairly implied from some one or more 
 
400 
 
 THE APPOI^;TrN'G ASD REMOVING POWER. 
 
 of them. It cannot be implied from 
 the general words. The power of ap- 
 pointment was not left to be so implied ; 
 why, then, should the power of removal 
 have been so left? They are botli 
 closely connected ; one is indispensable 
 to the other; why, then, was one care- 
 fully expressed, defined, and limited, 
 and not one word said about the other? 
 Sir, I think the whole matter is suffi- 
 ciently plain. Xothing is said in the 
 Constitution about the power of re- 
 moval, because it is not a separ.ate and 
 distinct power. It is part of the power 
 of appointment, naturally going with it 
 or necessarily resulting from it. Tiie 
 Constitution or the laws may separate 
 these powers, it is true, in a particular 
 case, as is done in respect to the judges, 
 who, though appointed by the President 
 and Senate, cannot be removed at the 
 pleasure of either or of both. So a 
 statute, in prescribing the tenure of any 
 other office, may place the officer beyond 
 the reach of the appointing power. But 
 where no other tenure is prescribed, and 
 officers hold their places at will, that 
 will is nece.'^sarily the will of the ap- 
 pointing power; because the exercise of 
 the power of appointment at once dis- 
 places such officers. The power of plac- 
 ing one man in office necessarily implies 
 the power of turning another out. If 
 one man be Secretary of State, and an- 
 other be appointed, the first goes out by 
 the mere force of the appointment of 
 tlie other, without any previous act of 
 removal whatever. And this is the 
 practice of the government, and has 
 been, from the first. la all the re- 
 movals which have been made, they 
 have generally been effected simply by 
 making otlier appointments. I cannot 
 find a case to the contrary. There is 
 no such thing as any distinct official act 
 of removal. I have looked into the 
 practice, and caused inquiries to be 
 made in the departnxeuts, and I do not 
 learn that any such proceeding is known 
 ds an entry or record of the removal of 
 an officer from office; and the President 
 could only act, in such cases, by causing 
 Bome proper record or eiitiy to be made, 
 as proof of the fact of removal. I am 
 
 aware that there have been some cases 
 in which notice has been sent to persons 
 in office that their services are, or will 
 be, after a given day, dispensed with. 
 These are usually cases in wiiich the 
 object is, not to inform the incumbent 
 that he is removed, but to tell him that 
 a successor either is, or by a day named 
 will be, appointed. If there be any 
 instances in which such notice is given 
 without express reference to the ap- 
 pointment of a successor, they are few; 
 and even in these, such reference must 
 be implied; because in no case is there 
 any distinct official act of removal, that 
 I can find, unconnected with the act of 
 appointment. At any rate, it is the 
 usual practice, and has been from tlie 
 first, to consider the ai^pointment as 
 producing the removal of the previous 
 incumbent. When the President de- 
 sires to remove a person from office, he 
 sends a message to the Senate nominat- 
 ing some other person. The message 
 usually runs in this form: " I nominate 
 A. B. to be collector of the customs, &c., 
 in the place of C. D., removed." If 
 the Senate advise and consent to this 
 nomination, C. D. is effectually out of 
 office, and A. B. is in, in his place. 
 The same effect would be produced, if 
 the message should say nothing of any 
 removal. Suppose A. B. to be Secre- 
 tary of State, and the President to send 
 us a message, saying merely, " I nomi- 
 nate C. D. to be Secretary of State." 
 If we confirm this nomination, C. D. 
 becomes Secretary of State, and A. B. 
 is necessarily removed. 
 
 I have gone into these details and par- 
 ticulars. Sir, for the purpose of showing, 
 that, not only in the nature of things, 
 but also according to tlie practice of tlie 
 government, the power of removal is hi- 
 cident to the power of appointment. It 
 belongs to it, is attached to it, forms a 
 part of it, or results from it. 
 
 If this be true, the inference is mani- 
 fest. If the power of removal, when 
 not otlierwise regulated by Constitution 
 or law, be part and parcel of the power 
 of appointment, or a necessary incident 
 to it, then whoever holds the power ox 
 apiniiutnient holds also the power of re- 
 
THE APrOINTING AND REMOVING POWEU. 
 
 401 
 
 moval. But it is the President and the 
 Senate, and not the President alone, who 
 hold the power of appointment; and 
 therefore, according to the true con- 
 struction of the Constitution, it should 
 be the President and Senate, and not 
 the President aloue, who hold the power 
 of removal. 
 
 The decision of 1789 has been followed 
 by a very strange and indefensible anom- 
 aly, showing that it does not rest on any 
 just principle. The natural connection 
 between the appointing power and tlie 
 removing power has, as I have already 
 stated, always led the President to bring 
 about a removal by the process of a new 
 appointment. This is quite efficient for 
 his purpose, when the Senate confirms 
 the new nomination. One man is tlien 
 turned out, and another put in. But 
 the Senate sometimes rejects the new 
 nomination ; and what then becomes of 
 the old incumbent? Is he out of office, 
 or is he still in? He has not been turned 
 out by any exercise of the power of ap- 
 pointment, for no appointment has been 
 made. That power has not been exer- 
 cised. He has not been removed by any 
 distinct and separate act of removal, for 
 no such act has been performed, or at- 
 tempted. Is he still in, then, or is he 
 out? Where is he? In this dilemma, 
 Sir, those who maintain the power of 
 removal as existing in the President 
 alone are driven to what seems to me 
 very near absurdity. The incumbent 
 has not been removed by the appointing 
 power, since the appointing power has 
 not been exercised. He has not been re- 
 moved by any distinct and independent 
 act of removal, since no such act has been 
 performed. 
 
 They are forced to the necessity, there- 
 fore, of contending that the removal has 
 been accomplished by the mere nomina- 
 tum of a successor ; so that the removing 
 power is made incident, not to the ap- 
 pointing power, but to one part of it; 
 that is, to the nominatinc/ power. The 
 nomination, not having been assented 
 to by the Senate, it is clear, has failed, 
 as the first step in the process of appoint- 
 ment. But though thus rendered null 
 and void in its main object, as the first 
 
 26 
 
 process in making an appointment, it i.s 
 held to be good and valid, nevertheless, 
 to bring about that which rexuUs from an 
 appointment ; that is, the removal of the 
 person actually in office. In other words, 
 the nomination produces the consequen- 
 ces of an appointment, or some of them, 
 though it be itself no appointment, and 
 effect no appointment. This, Sir, ap- 
 pears to me to be any thing but sound 
 reasoning and just construction. 
 
 But this is not all. The President has 
 sometimes sent us a nomination to an 
 office already filled, and, before we have 
 acted upon it, has seen fit to withdraw 
 it. What is the effect of such a nomina- 
 tion? If a nomination, merely as such, 
 turns out the present incumbent, theo 
 he is out, let what will become after- 
 wards of the nomination. But I believe 
 the President has acted upon the idea 
 that a nomination made, and at any 
 time afterwards withdrawn, does not re- 
 move the actual incumbent. 
 
 Sir, even this is not the end of the in- 
 consistencies into which the prevailing 
 doctrine has led. There have been cases 
 in which nominations to offices akeady 
 filled have come to the Senate, remained 
 here for weeks, or months, the incum- 
 bents all the while continuing to dis- 
 charge their official duties, and relin- 
 quishing their offices only when the 
 nominations of their successors have 
 been confirmed, and commissions issued 
 to them; so that, if a nomination be 
 confirmed, the nomination i7se{/' makes no 
 removal; the removal then waits to be 
 brought about by the appointment. But 
 if the nomination be rejected, then the 
 nomination itself, it is contended, has 
 effected the removal. AMio can defend 
 opinions which lead to such results? 
 
 These reasons. Sir, incline me strongly 
 to the opinion, that, upon a just con- 
 struction of the Constitution, the power 
 of removal is part of, or a necessary re- 
 sult from, the power of appointment, 
 and, therefore, that it ourfht to hace been 
 exercised by the Senate concm-rently 
 with the President. 
 
 The argument may be strengthened 
 by various illustrations. The Constitu- 
 tion declares that Congress may vest the 
 
402 
 
 THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 
 
 appointment of inferior officers in the 
 President alone, in the courts of law, or 
 in the heads of departments; and Con- 
 gress has passed various acts providing 
 for ai)iiointmenls, according to this reg- 
 ulation of the Constitution. Thus the 
 Supreme Court, and other coui-ts of the 
 United States, have authority to appoint 
 their clerks; heads of departments also 
 appoint their own clerks, according to 
 statute provisions; and it has never been 
 doubled that these courts, and these heads 
 of departments, may remove their clerks 
 at pleasure, although nothing is said in 
 the laws respecting such powerof removal 
 Now. it is evident that neither the courts 
 nor the heads of departments acquire tlie 
 right of removal under a general grant 
 of executive power, for none such is 
 made to them ; nor upon the ground of 
 any general injunction to see tlie laws 
 executed, for no such general injunction 
 is addressed to them. They neverthe- 
 less hold the power of removal, as all 
 admit, and they must hold it, therefore, 
 simply as incident to, or belonging to, 
 the power of appointment. There Ls no 
 other clause mider which they can possi- 
 bly claim it. 
 
 Again, let us suppose that the Con- 
 stitution had given to the President the 
 power of appointment, without consult- 
 ing the Senate. Suppose it had said, 
 " The President shall appoint ambassa- 
 dors, other public ministers, judges of 
 the Supreme Court, and all other officers 
 of the United States." If the Constitu- 
 tion had stood thus, the President would 
 unquestionably have possessed the power 
 of removal, where the tenure of office 
 was not fixed; and no man, I imagine, 
 would in that case have looked for the 
 .•emoving power either in that clause 
 which says the executive authority shall 
 be vested in the President, or in that 
 other clause which makes it his duty to 
 see the laws faithfully executed. Every- 
 body would have said, " The President 
 possesses an uncontrolled power of ap- 
 pointment, and that necessarily carries 
 with it an micontrolled power of re- 
 moval, unless some permanent tenm-e be 
 given to the office by the Constitution, 
 or by law." 
 
 And now, Sir, let me state, and ex- 
 amine, the main argument, on which 
 the decision of 1789 appears to rest it. 
 
 The most plausible reasoning brought 
 forward on that occasion may be fairly 
 stated thus: "The executive power is 
 vested in the President; this is the gen- 
 eial rule of the Constitution. The asso- 
 ciation of the Senate with the President 
 in exercising a particular function be 
 longing to the executive power, is an 
 exception to this general rule, and ex- 
 ceptions to general rules are to be taken 
 strictly; therefore, though the Senate 
 partakes of the appointing power, by ex- 
 press provision, yet, as nothing is said of 
 its participation in the removing power, 
 such participation is to be excluded." 
 
 The error of this argimient, if I may 
 venture to call it so, considering who 
 used it,' lies in this. It supposes the 
 power of remos-al to be held by the 
 President under the general grant of 
 executive power. Xow. it is certain 
 that the power of appointment is not 
 held under that general grant, because 
 it is particularly provided for, and is 
 conferred, in express terms, on the 
 President and Senate. If, therefore, 
 the power of removal be a natural ap- 
 pendage to the power of appointment, 
 then it is not conferred by the general 
 words granting executive power to the 
 President, but is conferred by the spe- 
 cial clause which gives the appointing 
 power to the President and Senate. So 
 that the spirit of the very rule on which 
 the argument of 1780, as I have stated 
 it, relies, appears to me to produce a 
 directly opposite result; for, if excep- 
 tions to a general rule are to be taken 
 strictly, when expressed, it is still more 
 clear, when they are not expressed at 
 all, that they are not to be implied ex- 
 cept on evident and clear grounds ; and 
 as the general power of appointment is 
 confessedly given to the President and 
 Senate, no exception is to be implied in 
 favor of one part of that general power, 
 namely, the removing part, unless for 
 some obvious and irresistible reason. 
 
 1 'Mr. Madison. See the liscussion in Galee 
 and Seatoii's Uel'ntes in Congress, Vol. I. p. 
 473 et »t'y. 
 
THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 
 
 403 
 
 In other words, this argument which I 
 am answering is not sound in its prem- 
 ises, and therefore not sound in its con- 
 clusion, if the grant of tlie power of 
 appointment does naturally include also 
 the power of removal, when this last 
 power is not otherwise expressly pro- 
 vided for; because, if the power of 
 removal belongs to the power of appoint- 
 ment, or necessarily follows it, then it 
 has gone with it into the han.'.s of the 
 President and Senate ; and the President 
 does not hold it alone, as an implication 
 or inference from the grant to him of 
 general executive powers. 
 
 The true application of that rule of 
 construction, thus relied on, would pre- 
 sent the argument, I think, in this 
 form: " The appointing power is vested 
 in the President and Senate; this is the 
 general rule of the Constitution. The 
 removing power is part of the appoint- 
 ing power; it cannot be separated from 
 the rest, but by supposing that an ex- 
 ception was intended; but all exceptions 
 to general rules are to be taken strictly, 
 even when expressed; and, for a munh 
 stronger reason, they are uot to be im- 
 plied, when not expressed, unless inevita- 
 ble necessity of construction requires it." 
 
 On the whole. Sir, with the diffidence 
 which becomes one who is reviewing the 
 opinions of some of the ablest and wisest 
 men of the age, I must still express my 
 own conviction, that the decision of 
 Congress in 1789, which separated the 
 power of removal from the power of 
 appointment, was founded on an eri-o- 
 neous construction of the Constitution, 
 and that it has led to great inconsisten- 
 cies, as well as to great abuses, in the 
 Bubsequent, and especially in the more 
 recent, history of the government. 
 
 Much has been said now, and much 
 was said formerly, about the inconven- 
 ience of denying this power to the Presi- 
 dent alone. I agree that an argument 
 draw'j from this source may have weight, 
 in a doubtful case ; but it is not to be 
 pernutted that we shall presume the ex- 
 istence of a power merely because w-e 
 think it would be convenient. Nor is 
 there, I think, any such glaring, strik- 
 ing, or certain inconvenience as has 
 
 been suggested. Sudden removals from 
 office are seldom necessary; we see how 
 seldom, by reference to the practice of 
 the government under all athninistra- 
 tions which preceded the present. And 
 if we look back over the removals" which 
 have been made in the last six years, 
 there is no man who can maintain that 
 there is one case in a hundred in which 
 the country would have suffered the 
 least inconvenience if no removal had 
 been made without the consent of the 
 Senate. Party might have felt the in- 
 convenience, but the country never. 
 Many removals have been made (by new 
 appointments) during the session of the 
 Senate; and if there has occurred one 
 single case, in the whole six years, in 
 which the public convenience required 
 the removal of an officer in tlie recess, 
 such case has escaped my recollection. 
 Besides, it is worthy of being remem- 
 bered, when w^e are seeking for the true 
 intent of the Constitution on this sub- 
 ject, that there is reason to suppose that 
 itsframers expected the Senate would be 
 in session a much larger part of the year 
 than the House of Representatives, so 
 that its concurrence could generally be 
 had, at once, on any question of appoint- 
 ment or removal. 
 
 But this argument, drawn from the 
 supposed inconvenience of denying an 
 absolute power of removal to the Presi- 
 dent, suggests still another view of the 
 question. The argument asserts, that 
 it must have been the intention of the 
 framers of the Constitution to confer 
 the power on the President, for the sake 
 of convenience, and as an absolutely 
 necessary power in his hands. A\'liy, 
 then, did they leave their intent doubt- 
 ful? Why did Oiey not confer the power 
 in express terms ? Why were they thus 
 totally silent on a point of so much im- 
 portance? 
 
 Seeing that the removing power nat- 
 urally belongs to the appointing power; 
 seeing that, in other cases, in the same 
 Constitution, its framers have left the 
 one with the consequence of drawing 
 the other after it, — if, in this instance, 
 they meant to do what was uncommon 
 and extraordinary, that is to say, if they 
 
404 
 
 THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 
 
 meant to separate and divorce the two 
 powers, wliy did they not say so? Why 
 did they not express their meaning in 
 plain words? AVliy should they take 
 up the appointing power, and carefully 
 define it, limit it, and restrain it, and 
 yet leave to vague inference and loose 
 construction an equally important pow- 
 er, which all must admit to be closely 
 connected with it, if not a part of it? 
 If others can account for all this silence 
 respecting the removing power, upon 
 any other ground than that the f ramers 
 of the Constitution regarded both powers 
 as one, and supposed they had provided 
 for them together, I confess I cannot. 
 I have the clearest conviction, that they 
 looked to no other mode of displacing 
 an officer than by impeachment, or by 
 the regular appointment of another per- 
 son to the same place. 
 
 But, Sir, whether the decision of 1789 
 were right or wrong, the bill before us 
 applies to the actually existing state of 
 things. It recognizes the President's 
 power of removal, in express terms, as 
 it has been practically exercised, inde- 
 pendently of the Senate. The present 
 bill does not disturb the power; but I 
 wish it not to be understood that the 
 power is, even now, beyond the reach 
 of legislation. I believe it to be within 
 the just power of Congress to reverse 
 the decision of 1789, and I mean to hold 
 myself at liberty to act, hereafter, upon 
 that question, as I shall think the safety 
 of the government and of the Constitu- 
 tion may require. The present bill, 
 however, proceeds upon the admission 
 that the power does at present exist. 
 Its words are : — 
 
 " Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, 
 in all nominations made by the President 
 to the Senate, to fill vacancies occasioned 
 by the exerjise of tlie President's power to 
 remove the said officers mentioned in tlie 
 second section of this act, the fact of tlie 
 removal shall be stated to the Senate, at 
 the same time that the nomination is made, 
 with a statement of the reasons for whicii 
 Buch officer may have been removed." 
 
 In my opinion, this provision is en- 
 tirely constitutional and highly expe- 
 dient. 
 
 The regulation of the tenure of ofBce 
 is a common exercise of legislative au- 
 thority, and the power of Congress in 
 this particular is not at all restrained or 
 limited by any thing contained in the 
 Constitution, except in regjird to judi- 
 cial officers. All the rest is left to the 
 ordinary discretion of the legislature. 
 Congress may give to offices which it 
 creates (except those of judges) what 
 duration it plea-ses. AVhen the office la 
 created, and is to be filled, the President 
 is to nominate the candidate to fill it; 
 but when he comes into the office, ha 
 comes into it upon the conditions and 
 restrictions which the law may have at- 
 tached to it. If Congress were to de- 
 clare by law that tlie Attorney-General, 
 or the Secretary of State, should hold 
 his office during good behavior, I ara 
 not aware of any ground on which such 
 a law could be held unconstitutional. 
 A provision of that kind in regard to 
 such officers might be unwise, but I do 
 not perceive that it would transcend tho 
 power of Congress. 
 
 If the Constitution had not prescribed 
 the tenure of judicial office. Congress 
 might have thought it expedient to give 
 the judges just such a tenure as the 
 Constitution has itself provided; that ia 
 to say, a right to hold during good be- 
 iiavior; and I am of opinion that such a 
 law would have been perfectly constitu- 
 tional. It is by law, in England, that 
 the judges are made independent of the 
 removing power of the crown. I do not 
 think that the Constitution, by giving 
 the power of appointment, or the power 
 both of appointment and removal, to 
 the President and Senate, intended to 
 impose any restraint on the legislature, 
 in regard to its authority of regulating 
 the duties, powers, duration, or iesjx>n- 
 sibility of office. I agree, that Congress 
 ought not to do any tiling which shall 
 essentially impair that right of nomina- 
 tion and appointment of certain officers, 
 such as ministers, judges, &c., which 
 the Constitution has vested in the Presi- 
 dent and Senate. Put while the power 
 of nomination and appointment is left 
 fairly where the Constitution has plao^d 
 it, I think the wholt* fii-ld of regulation 
 
THE APPOINTING AND REMOVING POWER. 
 
 405 
 
 is open to legislative discretion. If a 
 law were to pass, declarixig that district 
 attorneys, or collectors of customs, should 
 hold their offices four years, unless re- 
 moved on conviction for misbehavior, 
 no one could doubt its constitutional 
 validity; because the legislature is nat- 
 urally competent to prescribe the tenure 
 of office. And is a reasonable check on 
 tlie ixjwer of removal any thing more 
 than a qualification of the tenure of of- 
 fice? Let it be always remembered, 
 that the President's removing power, as 
 now exerci.sed, is claimed and held under 
 the general clause vesting in him the 
 executive authority. It is implied, or 
 inferred, from that clause alone. 
 
 Xow, if it is properly derived from 
 that source, since the Constitution does 
 not say how it shall be limited, how de- 
 fined, or how carried into effect, it seems 
 especially proper for Congre.ss, under 
 the general provision of the Constitu- 
 tion which gives it authority to pass all 
 laws necessary to cany into effect the 
 powers conferred on any department, to 
 regulate the subject of removal. And 
 the regulation here required is of the 
 gentlest kind. It only provides that the 
 President shall make known to the Sen- 
 ate his reasons for removal of officers 
 of this description, when he does see fit 
 to remove them. It might, I think, 
 very justly go farther. It might, and 
 perhaps it ought, to prescribe the form 
 of removal, and the proof of the fact. 
 It might, I also think, declare that the 
 President should only suspend officers, 
 at pleasure, till the next meeting of the 
 Senate, according to the amendment sug- 
 gested by the honorable member from 
 Kentucky; and, if the present practice 
 cannot be otherwise checked, this pro- 
 vision, in my opinion, ought hereafter to 
 be adopted. But I am content with the 
 slightest degree of restraint which may 
 be sufficient to arrest the totally un- 
 necessary, unreasonable, and dangerous 
 exercise of the power of removal. I 
 desire only, for the present at least, 
 that, when the President turns a man 
 out of office, he should give his reasons 
 for it to the Senate, when he nominates 
 another person to fill the place. Let 
 
 him give these reasons, and stand on 
 them. If they are fair and honest, he 
 need have no fear in stating them. It 
 is not to invite any trial; it is not to 
 give the removed officer an opportunity 
 of defence; it is not to excite contro- 
 versy and debate; it is sinii^ly that the 
 Senate, and ultimately the public, may 
 know the grounds of removal. I deem 
 this degree of regulation, at least, neces- 
 sary; unless we are willing to submit all 
 these officers to an absolute and a per- 
 fectly irresponsible removing power; a 
 power which, as recently exercised, tends 
 to turn the whole body of public officers 
 into partisans, dependants, favorites, 
 sycophants, and man-worshippers. 
 
 IVIr. President, without pursuing the 
 discussion further, I will detain the Sen- 
 ate only while I recapitulate the opinions 
 which I have expressed; because I am 
 far less desirous of influencing the judg- 
 ment of others, than of making clear the 
 grounds of my own judgment. 
 
 I think, then. Sir, that the power of 
 appointment naturally and necessarily 
 includes the power of removal where no 
 limitation is expressed, nor any tenure 
 but that at will declared. The power 
 of appointment being conferred on the 
 President and Senate, I think the power 
 of removal went along with it, and 
 should have been regarded as a part of 
 it, and exercised by the same hands. I 
 think, consequently, that the decision of 
 17S9, which implied a power of removal 
 separate from the appointing power, was 
 erroneous. 
 
 But I think the decision of 1789 has 
 been established by practice, and recog- 
 nized by subsequent laws, as the settled 
 construction of the Constitution, and 
 that it is our duty to act upon the case 
 accordingly, for the present ; without 
 admitting that Congress may not, here- 
 after, if necessity shall require it, re- 
 verse the decision of 1789. I think the 
 legislature possesses the power of regu- 
 lating the condition, duration, qualifica- 
 tion, and tenure of office, in all cases 
 where the Constitution has made no ex- 
 press provision on the subject. 
 
 I am, therefore, of opinion, that it is 
 competent for Congress to declare by 
 
406 
 
 THE APPOINTDsG AND REMOVING POAVER. 
 
 law, as one qualification of the tenure 
 of office, that the incumbeut shall re- 
 main in place till the President shall 
 remove him, for reasons to be stated to 
 tlie Senate. And I am of opinion that 
 this (jualilicatiou, mild and gentle as it 
 
 is, ■will have some effect in arresting the 
 evils which beset the progi-ess of the 
 government, and seriously thi'eaten its 
 future prosperity. 
 
 Tliese are the reasons for which I give 
 my support to this bill. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 This speech is fingular among the 
 ipeeches of Mr. Webster, as it exhibits 
 ham as a " StrictConstructionist," and as a 
 master of tbat peculiar kind of deductive 
 reasoning which is commonly considered 
 the special distinction of his great antago- 
 nist, Mr. Callioun. In subtilty and refine- 
 ment of argument it is fully the match of 
 most of Mr. Calhoun's elaborate disquisi- 
 tions. At the time of its delivery it ex- 
 cited the almost savage ire of John Quiucy 
 
 Adams, as will be seen by reference to the 
 latter's "Diary." It was in connection 
 with this speech that Mr. Adams speaks 
 of " the rotten heart of Daniel Webster." 
 How such a purely intellectual feat as this, 
 one so entirely passionless and impersonal, 
 should be referred to rottenness of heart, is 
 one of the unexplained m^-steries of the 
 operations of Mr. Adams's understanding, 
 when that understanding was misled by 
 personal antipathy. 
 
ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL 
 
 IN 1835. 
 
 A SPEECH DELIVEKEL) IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THK 
 14th of JANUARY, 1836, ON MU. BENTON'S RESOLUTIONS FOR Al^PROPRI- 
 ATING THE SURPLUS REVENUE TO NATIONAL DEFENCE. 
 
 It is not my purpose, jNIi". President, 
 to make any remark on the state of om* 
 affau-s with France. The time for that 
 discussion has not come, and I wait. 
 We are in daily expectation of a com- 
 munication from tlie President, which 
 will give us light; and we are author- 
 ized to expect a recommendation by him 
 of such measures as lie thinks it may be 
 necessary and proper for Congress to 
 adopt. I do not anticipate him. In 
 this most important and delicate busi- 
 ness, it is the proper duty of the exec- 
 utive to go forward, and I, for one, do 
 not intend either to be di'awn or driven 
 into the lead. When official informa- 
 tion shall be before us, and when meas- 
 ures shall be recommended upon the 
 proper responsibility, I shall endeavor 
 to form the best judgment 1 can, and 
 shall act according to its dictates. 
 
 I rise, now, for another purpose. This 
 resolutioQ has drawn on a debate upon 
 the general conduct of the Senate during 
 the last session of Congress, and espe- 
 cially in regard to the proposed grant of 
 the three millions to the President on 
 the last night of the session. My main 
 object is to tell the story of this transac- 
 tion, and to exliibit the conduct of the 
 Senate fairly to the public view. I owe 
 tills duty to the Senate. I owe it to the 
 committee with which I am connected; 
 and although whatever is personal to an 
 individual is generally of too little ku- 
 porlauce to be madi; the subject of much 
 
 remai'k, I hope I may be permitted to 
 say a few words in defence of my own 
 reputation, in reference to a matter which 
 has been greatly misrepresented. 
 
 This vote for the three millions was 
 proposed by the House of llepresenta- 
 tives as an amendment to the fortifica- 
 tion bill; and the loss of that bill, three 
 millions and all, is the charge which has 
 been made upon the Senate, sounded 
 over all the land, and now again re- 
 newed. I propose to give the true his- 
 tory of this bill, its origin, its progress, 
 and its loss. 
 
 Before attempting that, however, let 
 me remark, for it is worthy to be re- 
 marked and remembered, that the busi- 
 ness brought before the Senate last 
 session, important and various as it was, 
 and both public and private, w'as all 
 gone through with most uncommon de- 
 spatch and promptitude. No session 
 has witnessed a more complete clearing 
 off and finishing of the subjects before 
 us. The communications from the other 
 house, whether biUs or whatever else, 
 were especially attended to in a proper 
 season, and with that ready respect which 
 is due from one house to the otlier. 
 I recollect nothing of any importance 
 which came to us from the House of 
 Representatives, which was neglectea, 
 overlooked, or disregarded by the Sen- 
 ate. 
 
 On the other hand, it was the misfor- 
 tune of the Senate, and, as I think, the 
 
408 
 
 ON THE LOSS OF THE FOKTinCATION BILL IN 1835. 
 
 misfortune of the country, that, owing 
 to the state of business in the House of 
 Representatives towards the close of the 
 session, several measures w hich had been 
 matmed in the Senate, and passed into 
 bills, did not receive attention, so as to 
 be either agreed to or rejected, in the 
 other branch of the legislature. They 
 fell, of course, by the termination of the 
 session. 
 
 Among these measures may be men- 
 tioned the following, viz. : — 
 
 TuE Post-Offick Keform Bill, 
 which passed the Senate unaniuioudy , 
 and of the necessity for which the whole 
 country is certainly now most abun- 
 dantly satisfied; 
 
 The Custo.m-IIouse Regulations 
 Bill, which also passed nearly imau- 
 imously, after a very laborious prepara- 
 tion by the Committee on Commerce, 
 and a full discussion in the Senate; 
 
 TuE JuDiciAUY Bill, parsed here by 
 a majority of thu'ty-oue to five, and 
 which has again ah-eady passed the Sen- 
 ate at this session with only a single dis- 
 senting vote ; 
 
 The bill ixdemmfyixg claimants 
 Fou Fken'Cu spoliations befoke 1800; 
 
 The bill regulating the deposit 
 OF the public money ln the deposit 
 banks ; 
 
 The bill kespfotlng the tenure 
 of certain offices, and the power 
 
 OF REMOVAL FROM OFFICE; wllich has 
 
 now again been passed to be engrossed, 
 in the Senate, by a decided majority. 
 
 All these important measures, matm-ed 
 and passed in the Senate in the course 
 of the session, and many others of less 
 importance, were sent to the House of 
 Representatives, and we never heard any 
 thing more from them. They there 
 found their graves. 
 
 It is Morthy of being remarked, also, 
 that the attendance of members of the 
 Senate was remarkably full, particularly 
 toward the end of the session. On the 
 last day, e\ery Senator was in his place 
 till very near the hour of adjom-nmeut, 
 as the jouiual will show. We had no 
 breaking up for want of a quorum; no 
 delay, no calls of tlie Senate; nothing 
 which was made necessary by the negli- 
 
 gence or inattention of the members ol 
 this body. On the vote of the three 
 miUious of dollars, which was taken at 
 about eight o'clock in the evening, forty 
 eight votes were given, every member 
 of the Senate being in his place and an- 
 swering to his name. This is an in- 
 stance of pmictuality, diligence, and 
 labor, continued to the ver}' end of an 
 arduous session, whoUy without exam- 
 ple or parallel. 
 
 The Senate, then. Sir, must stand, ui 
 the judgment of every man, fully ac- 
 quitted of all remissness, all negligence, 
 all inattention, amidst the fatigue and 
 exliaustiou of the closing hours of Con- 
 gi'ess. Notliing passed imheeded, noth- 
 ing was overlooked, nothing forgotten, 
 and nothing slighted. 
 
 ^\_nd now. Sir, I would proceed imme- 
 diately to give the history of the fortifi- 
 cation bill, if it were not necessary, aa 
 introductory to that history, and as show- 
 ing the cii-cumstances mider which the 
 Senate was called on to transact the pub- 
 lic business, first to refer to another bill 
 \\ hich was before us, and to the proceed- 
 ings which were had upon it. 
 
 It is well known, Sii-, that the annual 
 appropriation bills always originate in 
 the House of Rej)resentatives. This is 
 so much a matter of course, that no one 
 ever looks to see such a bill first brought 
 forward in the Senate. It is also well 
 known. Sir, that it has been usual, here- 
 tofore, to make the annual appropria- 
 tions for the Military Academy at West 
 Point in the general bUl which provides 
 for the pay and support of the army. 
 But last year the army bill did not con- 
 tam any appropriation whatever for the 
 support of West Pomt. I took notice of 
 this singular omission when the bill was 
 before the Senate, but presumed, and 
 indeed understood, that the House would 
 send us a separate bill for the ^Military 
 Academy. The army bill, therefore, 
 passed; but no biU for the Academy at 
 West Point appeared, ^^'e waited for 
 it from day to day, and from week to 
 week, but waited in vain. At lengtli, 
 the time for sending bills from one house 
 to the other, according to the joint ride.'^ 
 of the two houses, expired, and no bill 
 
ON THE LOSS OF THE rOHTIEICATION RILL IN 1835. 
 
 409 
 
 had made its appearance for the support 
 of the Military Academy. These joint 
 rules, as is well known, are sometimes 
 suspended on the application of one 
 house to the other, in favor of particular 
 bills, ^Yhose progress has been unexpect- 
 edly delayed, but which the public in- 
 terest requires to be passed. But the 
 House of Representatives sent us no re- 
 quest to suspend the rules in favor of 
 a bill for the support of the ^lilitaiy 
 Academy, nor made any other proposi- 
 tion to save the institution from imme- 
 diate dissolution. Notwithstanding all 
 the talk about a war, and the necessity 
 of a vote for the three millions, the Mil- 
 itaiy Academy, an institution cherished 
 so long, and at so much expense, was on 
 tlie very point of being entii'ely broken 
 up. 
 
 Now it so happened, Sir, that at this 
 time there was another appropriation 
 bill which had come from the House 
 of Representatives, and was before the 
 Conunittee on Finance here. This bill 
 was entitled " An Act making ajipropri- 
 ations for the civil and diplomatic ex- 
 I)enses of the government for the year 
 1S3.3." 
 
 In this state of things, several mem- 
 bers of the House of Representatives ap- 
 plied to the committee, and besought us 
 to save the Militaiy Academy by annex- 
 ing the necessary appropriations for its 
 support to the bill for civil and diplo- 
 matic sen-ice. We spoke to them, in 
 reply, of the unfitness, the irregularity, 
 the incongruity, of this forced union of 
 such dissimilar subjects ; but they told us 
 it was a case of absolute necessity, and 
 that, without resorting to this mode, 
 the appropriation could not get through. 
 We acquiesced. Sir, in these suggestions. 
 "We went out of our way. We agreed to 
 do an extraordinary and an irree:ular 
 thing in order to save the public busi- 
 ness from miscarriage. By direction of 
 the committee, I moved the Senate to 
 add an appropriation for the Militarj' 
 Academy to the bill for defraying civil 
 and diplomatic expenses. The bill was 
 BO amended; and in this form the ap- 
 propriation was finally made. 
 
 But this was not all. This bill for 
 
 the civil and dijilomatic sei-vice, being 
 thus amended by tacking the Military 
 Academy to it, was sent back by us to 
 the House of Representatives, where its 
 length of tail was to be still much fur- 
 ther increased. That house had before 
 it several subjects for provision, and for 
 appropriation, upon which it had not 
 passed any bill before the time for pass 
 ing bills to be sent to the Senate had 
 elapsed. I was anxious that these 
 things should, in some way, be provided 
 for; and when the diplomatic bill camo 
 back, drawing the Military Academy 
 after it, it was thought prudent to at- 
 tach to it several of these other provis- 
 ions. There were propositions to pave 
 the streets in the city of "Washington, 
 to repair the Capitol, and various other 
 things, which it was necessaiy to pro- 
 vide for; and they, therefore, were put 
 into the same bill, by way of amend- 
 ment to an amendment; that is to say, 
 Mr. President, we had been prevailed 
 on to amend their bill for defraying the 
 salary of our ministers abroad, by add- 
 ing an appropriation for the Military 
 Academy, and they proposed to amend 
 this om- amendment by adding matter 
 as germane to it as it was itself to the 
 original bill. There was also the Presi- 
 dent's gardener. His salary was unpro- 
 vided for; and there was no way of 
 remedying this important omission, but 
 by giving him place in the diplomatic 
 service bill, among charge's d'affaires, 
 envoys extraordinary, and ministers 
 plenipotentiary. In and among the^e 
 ranks, therefore, he was formally intro- 
 duced by the amendment of the House, 
 and there he now stands, as you will 
 readily see by turning to the law. 
 
 Sir, I have not the pleasure to know 
 this useful person; but should I see him, 
 some morning, overlooking the work- 
 men in the lawns, walks, copses, and 
 parterres which adorn tlie gi-ounds 
 around the President's residence, con- 
 sidering the company into which we 
 have introduced him, I should expect 
 to see, at least, a small diplomatic but- 
 ton on his working jacket. 
 
 AMien these amendments came from 
 the House, and were read at our table, 
 
410 
 
 ON I HE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1836. 
 
 though they caused a smile, they were 
 yet adopted, and the law passed, almost 
 with the rapidity of a comet, and with 
 something like the same length of tail. 
 
 Xow, Sir, not one of these irregulari- 
 ties or incongruities, no part of this 
 jumbling together of distinct and differ- 
 ent subjects, was in the slightest degree 
 occasioned by any thing done, or omit- 
 ted to be done, on the part of the Sen- 
 ate. Their proceedings were all regu- 
 lar; their decision was prompt, their 
 despatch of the public business correct 
 and reasonable. There was nothing of 
 disorganization, nothing of procrastina- 
 tion, nothing evincive of a temper to 
 embarrass or obstruct the public busi- 
 ufcss. If the history which I have now 
 truly given shows that one thing was 
 amended by another, which had no sort 
 of connection with it; that unusual ex- 
 pedients were resorted to; and that the 
 laws, instead of arrangement and sym- 
 metry, exhibit anomaly, confusion, and 
 the most grotesque associations, it is 
 nevertheless true, that no part of all 
 this was made necessary by us. We 
 deviated from the accustomed modes of 
 legislation only when we were suppli- 
 cated to do so, in order to supply bald 
 and glaring deficiencies in measures 
 which were before us. 
 
 But now, ^Ir. President, let me come 
 to the fortification bill, the lost bill, 
 which not only now, but on a graver 
 occasion, has been lamented like the 
 lost Pleiad. 
 
 This bill, Sir, came from the House 
 of Representatives to the Senate in the 
 usual way, and was referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Finance. Its appropriations 
 were not large. Indeed, they appeared 
 to the committee to be quite too small. 
 It struck a majority of the committee at 
 once, that there were several fortifica- 
 tions on the coast, either not provided 
 for at all, or not adequately provided 
 for, by this bill. The whole amount of 
 its appropriations was four hundred or 
 four hundred and thirty thousand dol- 
 lars. It contained no grant of three 
 millions, and if the Senate had passed it 
 the very day it came from the House, 
 not onlj would there have been no ap- 
 
 propriation of the three million.-, but, 
 Sir, none of these other sums which the 
 Senate did insert in the biU. Others 
 besides ourselves saw the deficiencies ot 
 this biU. We had communications with 
 and from the departments, and we in- 
 serted in the bill eveiy thing which any 
 department recommended to us. "We 
 took care to be sure that nothing else 
 was coming. And we then reported the 
 bill to the Senate with our proposed 
 amendments. Among these amend- 
 ments, there was a sum of §75,000 for 
 Castle Island in Boston harbor, §100,000 
 for defences in Maryland, and so forth. 
 These amendments were agreed to by 
 the Senate, and one or two others added, 
 on the motion of members; and the 
 bill, as thus amended, was returned to 
 the House. 
 
 And now. Sir, it becomes important to 
 ask, "\^^len was this bill, thus amended, 
 returned to the House of Kepresenta- 
 tives? Was it unduly detained here, so 
 that the House was obliged afterwards 
 to act upon it suddenly? This question 
 is material to be asked, and material to 
 be answered, too, and the journal does 
 satisfactorily answer it; for it appears 
 by the journal that the bill was returned 
 to the House of Representatives on 
 Tuesday, the 24th of February, one 
 tchole week be/ore (he close of the t:ession. 
 And from Tuesday, the 24th of Febru- 
 ary, to Tuesday, the 3d day of ^March, 
 we heard not one word from this bill. 
 Tuesday, the 3d day of jNIarch, was, of 
 course, the last day of the session. We 
 assembled here at ten or eleven o'clock 
 in the morning of that day, and sat uutU 
 three in the afternoon, and still we were 
 not informed whether the House had 
 finally passed the bill. As it was an 
 important matter, and belonged to that 
 part of the public business which usuilly 
 receives particular attention from the 
 Committee on Finance, I bore the sub- 
 ject in my mind, and felt some solici- 
 tude about it, seeing that the se^slo^ 
 was diawing so near to a close. I took 
 it for granted, however, as I had not 
 heard any thing to the contrary, that 
 the amendments of the Senate would 
 not be objected to, and that, when a 
 
ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 
 
 411 
 
 convenient time should arrive for taking 
 up the bill in the House, it would be 
 passed at once into a law, and we should 
 hear no more about it. Not the slight- 
 est intimation was given, either that the 
 executive washed for any larger appro- 
 priation, or that it was intended in the 
 House to insert such larger appropria- 
 tion. Not a syllable escaped from any- 
 body, and came to our knowledge, that 
 any further alteration whatever was in- 
 tended in the bill. 
 
 At tliree o'clock in the afternoon of 
 the 3d of March, the Senate took its 
 recess, as is usual in that period of the 
 session, until five o'clock. At five 
 o'clock we again assembled, and pro- 
 ceeded with the business of the Senate 
 \intil eight o'clock in the evening; and 
 at eight o'clock in the evening, and not 
 before, the clerk of the House appeared 
 at our door, and announced that the 
 House of Representatives had disagreed 
 to one of the Senate's amendments, 
 agreed to others; and to two of those 
 amendments, namely, the fourth and 
 fifth, it had agreed, with an amendment 
 of its own. 
 
 Now, Sir, these foui'th and fifth 
 amendments of ours were, one, a vote 
 of $75,000 for Castle Island in Boston 
 harbor, and the other, a vote of $100,000 
 for certain defences in Maryland. And 
 what, Sir, was the addition which the 
 House of Representatives proposed to 
 make, by W'ay of '•'■ amendment^^ to a 
 vote of §75,000 for repairing the works 
 in Boston harbor? Here, Sir, it is: — 
 
 " And he it further enacted, That the sum 
 of three millions of dollars be, and the 
 same is hereby, appropriated, out of any 
 money in the treasury not otherwise ap- 
 propriated, to be expended, in whole or in 
 part, under the direction of the President 
 of the United States, for the military and 
 naval service, including fortifications and 
 ordnance, and the increase of the navy : 
 Provided, such expenditures shall be ren- 
 dered necessary for the defence of the 
 country prior to the next meeting of Con- 
 gress." 
 
 This proposition, Sir, was thus unex- 
 pectedly and suddenly put to us, at 
 eight o'clock in the evening of the last 
 
 day of the session. Unusual, unprece- 
 dented, extraordinary, as it obviously 
 is, on the face of it, the manner of pre- 
 senting it was still more extraordinary. 
 The President had asked for no such 
 gi-ant of money; no department had 
 recommended it; no estimate had sug- 
 gested it; no reason whatever was given 
 for it. No emergency had happened, 
 and notliing new had occurred; every 
 thing known to the administration, at 
 that hour, respecting our foreign rela- 
 tions, had certainly been known to it 
 for days and weeks. 
 
 With what propriety, then, could the 
 Senate be called on to sanction a pro- 
 ceeding so entirely irregular and anom- 
 alous? Sir, I recollect the occurrences 
 of the moment very well, and I remem- 
 ber the impression which this vote of 
 the House seemed to make all round the 
 Senate. We had just come otit of exec- 
 utive session; the doors were but just 
 opened; and I hardly remember that 
 there was a single spectator in the hall or 
 the galleries. I had been at the clerk's 
 table, and had not reached my seat, 
 when the message was read. All the 
 Senators were in the chamber. I heard 
 the message, certainly with great sur- 
 prise and astonishment; and I immedi- 
 ately moved the Senate to disagree to 
 this vote of the House. My relation to 
 the subject, in consequence of my con- 
 nection with the Committee on Finance, 
 made it my duty to propose some course, 
 and I had not a moment's doubt or 
 hesitation what that covu'se ought to 
 be. I took upon myself, then, Sir, the 
 responsibility of moving that the Sen- 
 ate should disagree to this vote, and I 
 now acknowledge that responsibility. It 
 might be presumptuous to say that I 
 took a leading part, but I certainly took 
 an early part, a decided part, and an 
 earnest part, in rejecting this broad 
 grant of three millions of dollars, 
 without limitation of purpose or speci- 
 fication of object, called for by no rec- 
 ommendation, founded on no estimate, 
 made necessary by no state of things 
 which was known to us. Certainly, 
 Sir, I took a part in its rejection ; and J 
 stand here, in my place in the Senate, 
 
412 
 
 ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 
 
 to-day, ready to defend the part so taken 
 by me; or, rather, Sir, I dischiim all 
 defence, and all occasion of defence, 
 and I assert it as meritorious to have 
 been among those who arrested, at the 
 earliest moment, this extraordinary de- 
 parture from all settled usage, and, as I 
 think, from plain constitutional injunc- 
 tion, — this indefinite votmg of a vast 
 bum of money to mere executive discre- 
 tion, without limit assigned, without 
 object specified, without reason given, 
 and without the least control. 
 
 Sir, I am told, that, in opposing this 
 grant, I spoke with warmth, and I sup- 
 pose I may have done so. K I did, it 
 was a warmth springing from as honest 
 a conviction of duty as ever influenced 
 a public man. It was spontaneous, un- 
 affected, sincere. There had been among 
 us. Sir, no consultation, no concert. 
 There could have been none. Between 
 the reading of the message and my mo- 
 tion to disagree, tliere was not time 
 enough for any two members of the 
 Senate to exchange five words on the 
 subject. The proposition was sudden 
 and perfectly imexpeoted. I resisted it, 
 as irregular, as dangerous in itself, and 
 dangerous in its precedent; as wholly 
 uimecessary, and as violating the plain 
 intention, if not the express words, of 
 the Constitution. Before the Senate, 
 then, I avowed, and before the country 
 I now avow, my part in this opposition. 
 Whatsoever is to fall on tliose who sanc- 
 tioned it, of that let me have my full 
 share. 
 
 The Senate, Sir, rejected this grant by 
 a vote of TWENTY-NINE against nineteen. 
 Those twenty-nine names are on the 
 journal; and whensoever the expunging 
 process may conunence, or how far so- 
 ever it may be carried, I pray it, in 
 mercy, not to erase mine from that rec- 
 ord. I beseech it, in its sparing good- 
 ness, to leave me that proof of attach- 
 ment to duty and to principle. It may 
 draw aiound it, over it, or through it, 
 black lines, or red lines, or any lines; 
 it may mark it in any way which either 
 the most i)rostrate and fantastical spirit 
 of 7tian-wor.sfiip, or the most ingenious 
 and elaboratfi study of self -degradation, 
 
 may devise, if only it will leave it so 
 that those who inherit my blood, or who 
 may hereafter care for my reputation, 
 shall be able to behold it where it now 
 stands. 
 
 The House, Sir, insisted en thia 
 amendment. The Senate adhered to its 
 disagi-eement ; the House asked a con- 
 ference, to which request the Senate im- 
 mediately acceded. The committee cf 
 conference met, and in a very short 
 time came to an agreement. They 
 agieed to recommend to their respective 
 houses, as a substitute for tlie vote pro- 
 posed by the House, the following: — 
 
 " As an additional appropriation for 
 arming the fortifications of the United 
 States, three hundred thousand dollars." 
 " As an additional apj^ropriatiou for 
 the repairs and equipment of ships of 
 war of the United States, five hundred 
 thousand dollars." 
 
 I immediately reported this agreement 
 of the committee of conference to the 
 Senate; but, inasmuch as the bill was 
 in the House of Rejiresentatives, the 
 Senate could not act further on the mat- 
 ter until the House should first have con- 
 sidered the report of the committee, 
 decided thereon, and sent us the bill. T 
 did not myself take any note of the par- 
 ticular hour of this part of the transac- 
 tion. The honorable member from Vir- 
 ginia 1 saj's he looked at his watch at the 
 time, and he knows that I had como 
 from the conference, and was in my seat, 
 at a quarter past eleven. I have no 
 reason to think that he is under any 
 mistake on this particular. He says it 
 so happened that he had occasion to take 
 notice of the hour, and well remembers 
 it. It could not well have been later 
 than this, as any one will be satisfied 
 who will look at our journals, public 
 and executive, and see what a mass of 
 business was despatched after I came 
 from the committee, and before the ad- 
 journment of the Senate. Having made 
 the report, Sir, I had no doubt that both 
 houses would concur in the result of the 
 conference, and looked every moment 
 for the officer of the House bringing the 
 bill. He did not come, however, and ' 
 
 1 Mr. Leigh. 
 
ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 
 
 413 
 
 pretty soon learned tliat there was doubt 
 whetlior the committee on the part of 
 the House would report to the House the 
 agreement of the conferees. At first, I 
 did not at all credit tliis ; but was con- 
 firmed by one communication after an- 
 other, until I was obliged to think it 
 true. Seeing that the bill was thus in 
 danger of being lost, and intending at 
 any rate that no blame should justly 
 attach to the Senate, I immediately 
 moved the following resolution: — 
 
 " Rei^olved, That a message be sent to 
 the honorable the House of Representa- 
 tives, respectfully to remind the House 
 of the report of the committee of con- 
 ference appointed on the disagreeing 
 votes of the two houses on the amend- 
 ment of the House to the amendment of 
 the Senate to the bill respecting the for- 
 tifications of the United States." 
 
 You recollect this resolution, Sir, hav- 
 ing, as I well remember, taken some 
 part on the occasion.^ 
 
 This resolution was promptly passed ; 
 the secretary carried it to the House, 
 and delivered it. What was done in the 
 House on the receipt of this message 
 now appears from the printed journal. 
 I have no wish to comment on the pro- 
 ceedings there recorded; all may read 
 them, and each be able to form his 
 own opinion. Suffice it to say, that 
 the House of Kepresentatives, having 
 then possession of the bill, chose to 
 retain that possession, and never acted 
 on the report of the committee of con- 
 ference. The bill, therefore, was lost. 
 It was lost in the House of Representa- 
 tives. It died there, and there its re- 
 mains are to be found. No opportunity 
 was given to the members of the House 
 to decide whether they would agree to 
 the report of the committee or not. 
 From a quarter past eleven, when the 
 report was agreed to, until two or three 
 o'clock in the morning, the House re- 
 mained in session. If at any time there 
 was not a quorum of members present, 
 the attendance of a quorum, we are to 
 presume, might have been commanded, 
 as there was undoubtedly a great major- 
 ity of members still in the city. 
 
 1 Mi King, of Alabama, was in the chair. 
 
 But, Sir, there is one other transaction 
 of the evening which I now feel l)Ouii<l 
 to state, because I think it quite impor- 
 tant on several accounts, that it should 
 be known. 
 
 A nomination was pending before the 
 Senate for a judge of the Supreme 
 Court. In the course of the sitting, tliat 
 nomination was callec^ up, and, on mo- 
 tion, was indefinitely postponed. In 
 other words, it was rejected; for an in- 
 definite postponement is a rejection. 
 The olfice, of course, remained vacant, 
 and the nomination of another person to 
 fill it became necessary. The President 
 of the United States was then in the 
 Capitol, as is usual on the evening of the 
 last day of the session, in the chamber 
 assigned to him, and with the heads of 
 departments around him. When nomi- 
 nations anj rejected under these circum- 
 stances, it has been usual for the Presi- 
 dent immediately to transmit a new 
 nomination to the Senate; otherwise the 
 oflice must remain vacant till the next 
 session, as the vacancy in such case has 
 not happened in the recess of Congress. 
 The vote of the Senate, indefinitely post- 
 poning this nomination, was carried to 
 the Presidest's room by the secretary of 
 the Senate. The President told the sec- 
 retary that it was more than an hour 
 past twelve o'clock, and that he coidd 
 receive no further communications from 
 the Senate, and immediately after, as I 
 have understood, left the Capitol. The 
 secretary brought back the paper con- 
 taining the certified copy of the vote of 
 the Senate, and indorsed thereon the 
 substance of the Pi-esident's answer, and 
 also added, that, according to his own 
 watch, it was quarter past one o'clock. 
 
 There are two views. Sir, in which 
 this occurrence may well deserve to be 
 noticed. One is as to the connection 
 which it may perhaps have had with the 
 loss of the fortification bill ; the other is 
 as to its general importance, as intro- 
 ducing a new rule, or a new practice, 
 respecting the intercourse between the 
 President and the two houses of Congres? 
 on the last day of the session. 
 
 On the first point, I shall only observe 
 that die fact of the President's Itviug 
 
414 
 
 ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 183fe. 
 
 declined to receive this communication 
 from the Senate, and of his having left 
 the Capitol, was immediately known in 
 the House of Representatives. It was 
 quite obvious, that, if he could not re- 
 ceive a communication from the Senate, 
 neither could he receive a bill from the 
 House of Representatives for his signa- 
 ture. It was eq«ally obvious, that, if, 
 under these circumstances, the House of 
 Repiesentatives should agree to the re- 
 port of the committee of conference, so 
 that the bill should pass, it must, never- 
 theless, fail to become a law for want of 
 the President's signature; and that, in 
 that case, the blame of losing the bill, 
 on whomsoever else it might fall, could 
 not be laid upon the Senate. 
 
 On the more general point, I must say. 
 Sir, that this decision of the President, 
 not to hold communication with the 
 houses of Congress after twelve o'clock 
 at night, on the 3d of March, is quite 
 new. Xo such objection has ever been 
 made before by any President. Xo one 
 of them has ever declined coramuiiicat- 
 ing with either house at any time during 
 the continuance of its session on that 
 day. All Presidents heretofore have left 
 with the houses themselves to fix their 
 hour of adjournment, and to bring their 
 session for the day to a close, whenever 
 they saw fit. 
 
 It is notorious, in point of fact, that 
 nothing is more common than for both 
 houses to sit later than twelve o'clock, 
 for the purpose of completing measures 
 which are in the last stages of their 
 progress. Amendments are proposed 
 and agreed to, bills passed, enrolled 
 bills signed by the presiding officers, 
 and other imjiortant legislative acts per- 
 formed, often at two or three o'clock in 
 thf- njorning. All this is very well 
 known to gentlemen who have been for 
 any considerable time members of Con- 
 gress. And all Presidents have signed 
 bills, and have also made nominations 
 to tlie Senate, without objection as to 
 time, whenever bills have been presented 
 for signature, or whenever it became ne- 
 cessary to make nominations to the Sen- 
 ate, at any time during the session of the 
 resjiective houses on that day. 
 
 And all this, Sir, I suppose to be per 
 fectly right, correct, and legal. Tnere 
 is no clause of the Constitution, noi is 
 there any law, which declares that the 
 term of office of members of the House 
 of Representatives shall expire at twelve 
 o'clock at night on the 3d of March. 
 They are to hold for two years, but the 
 precise hour for the commencement cf 
 that term of two years is nowhere fixed 
 by constitutional or legal provision. It 
 has been established by usage and by 
 inference, and very properly established, 
 that, since the first Congress commenced 
 its existence on the first "Wednesday in 
 March, 1789, which happened to be the 
 fourth day of the month, therefore the 4th 
 of !March is the day of the commence- 
 ment of each successive term; but no 
 hour is fixed by law or practice. The 
 true rule is, as I think, most undoubt- 
 edly, that the session held on the last 
 day constitutes the last day for all legis- 
 lative and legal purposes. A^'hile the 
 session begun on that day contiimes, the 
 day itself continues, according to the 
 established practice both of legislative 
 and judicial bodies. This could not 
 well be othei-n-ise. If the precise mo- 
 ment of actual time were to settle such 
 a matter, it woiild be material to ask, 
 AMio shall settle the time? Shall it be 
 done by public authority, or shall every 
 man observe the tick of his own watch? 
 If absolute time is to furnish a precise 
 rule, the excess of a minute, it is obvious, 
 would be as fatal as tlie excess of an 
 hour. Sir, no bodies, judicial or legis- 
 lative, have ever been so hyjiercritical, 
 so astute to no purpose, so much more 
 nice than wise, as to govern themselves 
 by any such ideas. The session for the 
 day, at whatever hour it commences, or 
 at whatever hour it breaks up, is the 
 legislative day. Every thing has refer- 
 ence to tlie commencement of that diur- 
 nal session. For instance, this is the 
 14th day of January; we assembled here 
 to-day at twelve o'clock; our journal is 
 dated January 14th, and if we should 
 remain here until five o'clock to-morrow 
 morning (and the Senate has sometimes 
 sat so late), our proceedings would still 
 bear date of the 14th of January; they 
 
ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 
 
 415 
 
 would be so stated upon the journal, 
 and the journal is a record, and is a 
 conclusive record, so far as respects the 
 jiroceedings of the body. 
 
 It is so in judicial proceedings. If a 
 man were on trial for his life, at a late 
 hoiu on the last day allowed by law for 
 the holding of the court, and the jury 
 should acquit him , but happened to re- 
 main so long in deliberation that they 
 did not bring in tlieir verdict till after 
 twelve o'clock, is it all to be held for 
 naught, and the man to be tried over 
 again? Are all verdicts, judgments, and 
 orders of courts null and void, if made 
 after midnight on the day which the law 
 prescribes as the last day? It would be 
 easy to show by authority, if authority 
 could be wanted for a thing the reason 
 of which is so clear, that the day lasts 
 while the daily session lasts. "When tlie 
 court or the legislative body adjourns 
 for that day, the day is over, and not 
 before. 
 
 I am told, indeed, Sir, that it is true 
 that, on this same 3d day of March last, 
 not only were other things transacted, 
 but that the bill for the repair of the 
 Cumberland Road, an important and 
 much litigated measure, actually re- 
 ceived the signatiire of our presiding 
 officer after twelve o'clock, was then 
 sent to the President, and signed by 
 him. I do not affirm this, because I 
 took no notice of the time, or do not 
 remember it if I did ; but I have heard 
 the matter so stated. 
 
 I see no reason, Sir, for the introduc- 
 tion of this new practice ; no principle 
 on which it can be justified, no necessity 
 for it, no propriety in it. As yet, it 
 lias been applied only to the President's 
 intercourse with the Senate. Certainly 
 it is equally applicable to his inter- 
 course with botli houses in legislative 
 matters; and if it is to prevail here- 
 after, it is of much importance that it 
 should be known. 
 
 The President of the United States, 
 Sir, has alluded to this loss of the forti- 
 fication bill in his message at the open- 
 ing of Ihe session, and he has alluded, 
 also, in the same message, to the rejec- 
 tion of the vote of the three millions. 
 
 On the first point, that is, the loss of 
 the whole bill, and the causes of that 
 loss, this is his language: " Mucli loss 
 and inconvenience have been experi- 
 enced in consequence of the failure of 
 the bill containing the ordinary appro- 
 priations for fortifications, which passed 
 one branch of the national legislature 
 at the last session, but was lost in tlie 
 other." 
 
 if the President intended to say that 
 the bill, having originated in the IloiLse 
 of Kepresentatives, passed the Senate, 
 and was yet afterwards lost in the House 
 of Kepresentatives, he was entirely cor- 
 rect. But he has been wholly misin- 
 formed, if he intended to state that the 
 bill, having passed the House, was lost in 
 the Senate. As I have already stated, 
 tlie bill was lost in the House of Kepre- 
 sentatives. It drew its last breath there. 
 That House never let go its hold on ii 
 after the report of the committee of con- 
 ference. But it held it, it retained it, 
 and of course it died in its possession 
 when the House adjom^ned. It is to be 
 regretted that the President should have 
 been misinformed in a matter of this 
 kind, when tlie slightest reference to the 
 journals of the two houses would have 
 exhibited the correct history of the trans- 
 action. 
 
 I recur again, Mr. President, to the 
 proposed gi-aiit of the three millions, for 
 the purpose of stating somewhat more 
 distinctly the true gromids of objection 
 to that grant. 
 
 These gi-omids of objection were two ; 
 the first was, that no such appropriation 
 had been recommended by the President, 
 or any of the departments. And what 
 made this gi-ound the stronger was, that 
 the proposed grant was defended, so far 
 as it was defended at all, upon an alleged 
 necessity, growing out of oui- foreign 
 relations. The foreign relations of the 
 country are intrusted by the Constitu- 
 tion to the lead and management of the 
 executive government. The President 
 not only is supposed to be, but usually 
 is, much better informed on these uiter- 
 esting subjects than the hoxises of Con- 
 gress. If there be danger of a rupture 
 with a foreign state, he sees it soonest. 
 
41G ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1831) 
 
 All our ministers and agents abroad are 
 but so many eyes, and ears, and organs 
 to communicate to him whatsoever oc- 
 curs in foreign places, and to keep him 
 ■well advised of all which may concern 
 the interests of the United States. 
 There is an especial propriety, there- 
 fore, that, in this branch of the public 
 service, Congress should always be able 
 to avail itself of the distinct opinions 
 and recommendations of the President. 
 The two houses, and especially the 
 House of Representatives, are the nat- 
 ural guardians of the people's money. 
 They are to keep it sacred, and to use it 
 discreetly. They are not at liberty to 
 spend it where it is not needed, nor to 
 ofEer it for any purjiose till a reasonable 
 occasion for the expenditure be shown. 
 Now, in this case, I repeat again, the 
 President had sent us no recommenda- 
 tion for any such appropriation ; no de- 
 partment hud recommended it; no esti- 
 mate had contained it; in tlie whole 
 history of the session, from the morning 
 of the first day, down to eight o'clock 
 in the evening of the last day, not one 
 syllable had been said to us, not one 
 hint suggested, showing that the Presi- 
 dent deemed any such measure either 
 necessai-y or proper. I state this strong- 
 ly, Sir, but I state it truly. I state the 
 matter as it is; and I wish to draw the 
 attention of the Senate and of the coun- 
 try strongly to this part of the case. I 
 say again, therefore, that, when this 
 vote for the three millions was proposed 
 to the Senate, there was nothing before 
 us showing that the President recom- 
 mended any such appropriation. You 
 very well know, Sir, that this objection 
 was stated as soon as the message from 
 the House was read. We all well re- 
 member that this was the very point 
 put forth by the honorable member from 
 Tennessee,^ as being, if I may say so, 
 the but-end of his argument in opposi- 
 tion to tlie vote. He said, very signifi- 
 cantly, and very forcibly, "It is not 
 asked for by those who best know what 
 the public sei-vice requires; how, then, 
 are we to presume that it is needed? " 
 Tliis quf>lit)n, Sir, was not answered 
 
 1 Mr. White. 
 
 then; it never has been answered since, 
 it never can be answered satisfacto- 
 rily. 
 
 But let me here again. Sir, recur to 
 the message of the President. Speak- 
 ing of the loss of the bill, he uses these 
 words : ' ' This failure was the more re- 
 gretted, not only because it necessarily 
 interrupted and delayed the progress of 
 a system of national defence projected 
 immediately after the last war, and 
 since steadily pursued, but also because 
 it contained a contingent apjiropriation, 
 inserted in accordance with the views of 
 the executive, in aid of this important 
 object, and other branches of tlie na- 
 tional defence, some portions of which 
 might have been most usefully applied 
 during the past season." 
 
 Taking these words of the message, 
 Sir, and connecting them with the fact 
 that the President had made no recom- 
 mendation to Congress of any such ap- 
 propriation, it strikes me that they fur- 
 nish matter for verj' grave reflection. 
 The President says that this propo.sed 
 apjiropriation was *' in accordance with 
 the views of the executive"; that it 
 was "in aid of an important object"; 
 and that "some portions of it might 
 have been most usefully applied during 
 the past season." 
 
 And now. Sir, I ask, if this be so, 
 why was not this appropriation recom- 
 mended to Congress by the President? 
 I ask tliis question in the name of the 
 Constitution of the United States; I 
 stand on its own clear authority in ask- 
 ing it; and I invite all those who re- 
 member its injunctions, and wlio mean 
 to respect them, to consider weh how 
 the question is to be answered. 
 
 Sir, the Constitution is not yet an en 
 tire dead letter. There is yet some form 
 of observance of its requirements; and 
 even wliile any degree of formal respect 
 is paid to it, 1 must be permitted to con- 
 tinue the question. Why was not tliis 
 appropriation recommended? It was in 
 accordance with the President's views; 
 it was for an important object; it might 
 liave been usefully expended. The 
 President being of opinion, therefore, 
 that tlie appropriation was necessary 
 
ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 
 
 417 
 
 an proper, how is it that it was not rec- 
 ommended to Congi-ess? For, Sir, we 
 all know the plain and direct words in 
 which the very first duty of the Presi- 
 dent is imposed by tlie Constitution. 
 Here they are: — 
 
 " lie shall, from time to time, give 
 to the Congress information of the state 
 of the Union, and recommend to their 
 consideration such measures as he shall 
 judge necessary and expedient." 
 
 After enmnerating the poicers of the 
 President, this is the 'first, the very first 
 duty which the Constitution gravely en- 
 joins upon him. And now. Sir, in no 
 language of taunt or reproach, in no 
 language of party attack, in terms of 
 no asperity or exaggeration, but called 
 upon by the necessity of defending my 
 own vote ujion the subject, as a public 
 man, as a member of Congi-ess here in 
 my place, and as a citizen who feels as 
 warm an attachment to the Constitution 
 of the country as any other can, I de- 
 mand of any who may choose to give it 
 an answer to this question: Why was 
 
 NOT THIS MEASURE, WHICH THE PRESI- 
 DENT DECLARES THAT HE THOUGHT 
 NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT, RECOM- 
 MENDED TO Congress? And why am 
 I, and why are other members of Con- 
 gress, whose path of duty the Constitu- 
 tion says shall be enlightened by the 
 President's opinions and communica- 
 tions, to be charged with want of pa- 
 triotism and want of fidelity to the 
 country, because we refused an appro- 
 priation which the President, though it 
 was in accordance with his views, and 
 though he believed it important, would 
 not, and did not, recommend to us? 
 When these questions are answered to 
 the satisfaction of intelligent and im- 
 partial men, then, and not till then, let 
 reproach, let censure, let suspicion of 
 any kind, rest on the twenty-nine names 
 which stand opposed to this appropria- 
 tion. 
 
 How, Sir, were we to know that this 
 appropriation "was in accordance with 
 the views of the executive"? He had 
 not so told us, formally or informally. 
 He had not only not recommended it to 
 Congress, or either house of Congress, 
 
 27 
 
 but nobody on this floor had undertaken 
 to speak in his behalf. Xo man got up 
 to say, "The President desires it; he 
 thinks it necessary, expedient, and 
 proper." But, Sir, if any gentleman 
 had risen to say this, it would not ha\-e 
 answered the requisition of the Consti- 
 tution. Not at all. It is not by a hint, 
 an intimation, the suggestion of a 
 friend, that the executive duty in I his 
 respect is to be fulfilled. By no means. 
 Tlie President is to make a recommen- 
 dation, — a public recommendation, an 
 oflicial recommendation, a responsible 
 recommendation, not to one house, but 
 to both houses ; it is to be a recommen- 
 dation to Congress. If, on receiving 
 such recommendation, Congress fail to 
 pay it proper respect, the fault is theirs. 
 If, deeming the measure necessary and 
 expedient, the President fails to recom- 
 mend it, the fault is his, clearly, dis- 
 tinctly, and exclusively his. Tliis, Sir, 
 is the Constitution of the United States, 
 or else I do not understand the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. 
 
 Does not every man see how entirely 
 unconstitutional it is that the President 
 should communicate his opinions or 
 wishes to Congress, on such grave and 
 important subjects, otherwise than by a 
 direct and responsible recommendation, 
 a public and open recommendation, 
 equally addressed and equally known 
 to all whose duty calls upon them to act 
 an the subject? What would be the 
 state of things, if he might communi- 
 cate his wishes or opinions privately to 
 members of one house, and make no 
 such communication to the other? 
 Would not the two houses be neces- 
 sarily put in immediate collision? 
 Would they stand on equal footing? 
 Would they have equal information? 
 What coidd ensue from such a manner 
 of conducting the public business, but 
 quarrel, confusion, and conflict? A 
 member rises in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, and moves a very large ap- 
 propriation of money for military pur- 
 poses. If he says he does it upon ex- 
 ecutive recommendation, where is his 
 voucher? The President is not like the 
 British king, whose ministers and sec- 
 
418 
 
 ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1836. 
 
 retaries are in the Ilouse of Commons, 
 and wlio are authorized, in certain cases, 
 to exi>ress the opinions and wishes of 
 their sovereign. We have no king's 
 servants; at least, we have none known 
 to tlie Constitution. Congress can know 
 the oinuions of the President only as he 
 oftioKilly communicates them. It would 
 be a curious inquiry in either house, 
 when a large appropriation is moved, 
 if it were necessaiy to ask whether the 
 mover represented the President, spoke 
 his sentiments, or, in other words, 
 ■nhetlier what he proposed were " in 
 accordance with the views of the execu- 
 tive." How could that be judged of? 
 By the party he belongs toV Party is 
 not quite strongly enough marked for 
 that. By the airs he gives himselfV 
 Many might assume airs, if thereby 
 they could give themselves such imi^or- 
 tauce as to be esteemed authentic exposi- 
 tors of the executive will. Or is this 
 will to be circulated in whispers; made 
 known to the meetings of party men; 
 intimated through the press; or com- 
 municated in any other form, which 
 still leaves the executive completely 
 irresponsible; so that, while executive 
 purposes or wishes pervade the ranks of 
 party friends, influence their conduct, 
 and unite their efforts, the open, di- 
 rect, and constitutional responsibility is 
 wholly avoided? Sir, this is not the 
 Constitution of the United States, nor 
 can it be consistent with any constitu- 
 tion which professes to maintain sepa- 
 rate departments in the government. 
 
 Here, then. Sir, is abundant ground, 
 in my judgment, for the vote of the 
 Senate, and here I might rest it. But 
 there is also another ground. The Con- 
 Btitution declares that no money shall 
 be drawn from the treasury but in conse- 
 cjuence of api^ropriations made by law. 
 ^V'ilut is meant by '■'■appropriations^'' ? 
 Does not this language mean that par- 
 ticular sums shall be assigned by law to 
 \ articular objects? How far this point- 
 ing out and fixing the particular objects 
 Khali be can-ied, is a question tliat can- 
 not be .settled by any pi-ecise rule. But 
 " speciiic approi>riation," that is to say, 
 thf" designation of every object for which 
 
 money is voted, as far as such designa- 
 tion is practicable, has been thought to 
 be a most important republican princi- 
 ple. In times past, popular parties have 
 claimed great merit from professing to 
 carrj' this doctrine much farther, and to 
 adhere to it much more strictly, than 
 their adversaries. !Mr. Jefferson, espe- 
 cially, was a great advocate for it, and 
 held it to be indispensable to a safe and 
 economical adjninistration and disburse- 
 ment of the public revenues. 
 
 But what have the friends and admir- 
 ers of Mr. Jefferson to say to this appro- 
 priation ? AVhere do they find, in this 
 proposed grant of three millions, a con- 
 stitutional designation of object, and a 
 particular and specific application of 
 money? Have tliey forgotten, all for- 
 gotten, and wholly abandoned even aU 
 pretence for specific appropriation? If 
 not, how could they sanction such a vote 
 as tills? Let me recall its terms. They 
 are, that " the sum of three millions of 
 dollars be, and the same is hereby, ap- 
 propriated, out of any money in the 
 treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
 be expended, in whole or in part, imder 
 the direction of the President of the 
 United States, for the military and naval 
 service, including fortifications and ord- 
 nance, and the increase of the na^-y; 
 provided such expenditures shall be ren- 
 dered necessary for the defence of the 
 country prior to tlie next meeting of 
 Congress." 
 
 In the fii-st place it is to be observed, 
 that whether the money shall be used 
 at all, or not, is made to depend on the 
 discretion of the President. This is 
 sufficiently liberal. It carries confi- 
 dence far enough. But if there had 
 been no other objections, if the objects 
 of the appropriation had been suifi- 
 ciently described, so that the President, 
 if he expended the money at all, must 
 expend it for purj^oses authorized by 
 the legislature, and nothing had been 
 left to his discretion but the question 
 whethei- an emergency had arisen in 
 which the authoritj- ouglit to be exer- 
 cised, I might not have felt bound to 
 reject the vote. Tliere are some prece- 
 dents wliich miffht favor such a contii' 
 
ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 
 
 419 
 
 gent proxision, though the practice is 
 dangerous, and ought not to Le fol- 
 lowed except in cases of clear necessity. 
 
 But the insurmountable objection to 
 the proposed grant was, that it specified 
 no objects. It ^vas as general as lan- 
 guage could make it. It embraced 
 every expenditure that could be called 
 either military or naval. It was to in- 
 clude "fortifications, ordnance, and the 
 increase of the na\T," but it was not 
 confined to these. It embraced the 
 whole general subject of military ser- 
 vice. Under the authority of such a 
 law, the President might repair ships, 
 build ships, buy ships, enlist seamen, 
 and do any thing and every thing else 
 touching the naval service, without re- 
 straint or control. 
 
 He might repair such fortifications as 
 he s.aw fit, and neglect the rest; arm 
 such as he saw fit, and neglect the arm- 
 ing of others; or build new fortifica- 
 tions wherever he chose. But these 
 unlimited powers over the fortifications 
 and the navy constitute by no means 
 the most daugerous part of the proposed 
 authority; because, under that author- 
 ity, his power to raise and employ 
 land forces would be equally abso- 
 lute and uncontrolled. He might levy 
 troops, embody a new army, call out 
 tlie militia in numbers to suit his o'^ti 
 discretion, and employ them as he saw 
 fit. 
 
 Now, Sir, does om- legislation, under 
 the Constitution, fm'nish any precedent 
 for all this? 
 
 We make appropriations for the 
 army, and we understand what we 
 are doing, because it is "the army," 
 that is to say, the army established 
 by law. We make appropriations for 
 the navy; they, too, are for "the 
 nav}-," as provided for and established 
 by law. We make appropriations for 
 fortifications, but we say what fortifi- 
 cations, and we assign to each its in- 
 tended amount of the whole sum. 
 This is the usual course of Congress on 
 such subjects ; and why should it be de- 
 parted from? Are we ready to say that 
 the power of fixing the places for new 
 fortifications, and the sum allotted to 
 
 each; the power of ordering new shipa 
 to be built, and fixing the niunber of 
 such new ships; the power of laying 
 out money to raise men for the anny ; 
 in short, every power, great or small, 
 respecting the militaiy and naval ser- 
 vice, shall be vested in the President, 
 without specification of object or pur- 
 pose, to the entire exclusion of the ex- 
 ercise of all judgment on the part of 
 Congi'ess ? For one, I am not pre- 
 pared. The honorable member from 
 Ohio, near me, has said, that if the 
 enemy had been on our shores he would 
 not have agreed to this vote. And I 
 say, if the proposition were now before 
 us, and the guns of the enemy were 
 pointed against the walls of the Capitol, 
 I would not agi-ee to it. 
 
 The people of this country have an 
 interest, a property, an inheritance, in 
 this INSTRUMENT, against the value of 
 which forty capitols do not weigh the 
 twentieth part of one poor scruple. 
 There can never be any necessity for 
 such proceedings, but a feigned and 
 false necessity ; a mere idle and hollow 
 pretence of necessity ; least of all can it 
 be said that any such necessity actually 
 existed on the 3d of March. There 
 was no enemy on our shores ; there were 
 no guns pointed against the Capitol; we 
 were in no war, nor was there a rea- 
 sonable probability that we should have 
 war, unless we made it ourselves. 
 
 But whatever was the state of our 
 foreign relations, is it not preposterous 
 to say, that it was necessary for Con- 
 gress to adopt this measure, and yet not 
 necessary for the President to recom- 
 mend it? Wliy should we thus run in 
 advance of all our own duties, and leave 
 the President completely shielded fi-om 
 his just responsibility? ^Miy should 
 there be nothing but trust and confi- 
 dence on om- side, and nothing but dis- 
 cretion and power on his? 
 
 Sir, if there be any philosophy in his- 
 tory, if human blood still rims in hu- 
 man vems, if man still conforms to the 
 identity of his natm-e, the institutions 
 which secure constitutional liberty' can 
 never stand long against this excessive 
 personal confidence, against this devo- 
 
420 
 
 OX THE LOSS OF THE FORTU/IOATION BILL IN 1835 
 
 tion to men, in utter disregard both of 
 principle and experience, ■VNhich seem to 
 me to be strongly characteristic of our 
 times. This vote came to us, Sir, from 
 the popular branch of the legislature; 
 and that such a vote should come from 
 such a branch of the legislature was 
 amongst the circumstances which ex- 
 cited in me the greatest surprise and the 
 deepest concern. Certainly, Sir, cer- 
 tainly I was not, on that account, the 
 more inclined to concur. It was no 
 argument with me, that others seemed 
 to be rushing, with such heedless, head- 
 long trust, such impetuosity of confi- 
 dence, into the arms of executive 
 power. I held back the more strongly, 
 and would hold back the longer. I see. 
 or I think I see, — it is either a true 
 vision of the future, revealed by the his- 
 tory of the past, or, if it be an illusion, 
 it is an illusion which appears to me in 
 all the brightness and sunlight of broad 
 noon, — that it is in this career of per- 
 sonal confidence, along this beaten 
 track of man-worsJiip, marked at every 
 stage by the fragments of other free 
 governments, that our owo system is 
 making progress to its close. A per- 
 sonal popularity, honorably earned at 
 first by militaiy achievements, and sus- 
 tained now by party, by patronage, and 
 l)y enthusiasm which looks for no ill, 
 because it means no ill itself, seems to 
 render men willing to gi-atify power, 
 even before its demands are made, and 
 to .surfeit executive discretion, even in 
 anticipation of its own appetite. 
 
 If, Sir, on the 3d of March last, it 
 had been the purpose of both houses of 
 Congress to create a military dictator, 
 what formula had been better suited to 
 their purpose than this vote of the 
 House? It is true, we might have 
 given more money, if we had had it to 
 give. "We might have emptied the treas- 
 ury; but as to the form of the gift, we 
 could not have bettered it. Kome had 
 no better models. Wlien we give our 
 money y^jr any milltaru purpose whatever, 
 what remains to be done? If we leave 
 it with one man to decide, not only 
 whether the military means of the 
 country shall be used at aU, but how 
 
 they shall be used, and to what extent 
 they shall be employed, what remains 
 either for Congress or the people but to 
 sit still and see how this dictatorial 
 power will, be exerci.sed? On the ;Jd of 
 Alarch, Sir, I had not forgotten, it was 
 impossible that I should have forgotten, 
 the recommendation in the message at 
 the opening of that session, that power 
 should be vested in the President to 
 issue letters of marque and reprisal 
 against France, at his discretion, in 
 the recess of Congress. Happily, this 
 power was not granted; but suppose it 
 had been, what would then have been 
 the true condition of this government? 
 "Wliy, Sir, this condition is very shortly 
 described. The whole war power woidd 
 have been in the hands of the Presi- 
 dent; for no man can doubt a moment 
 that reprisals would bring on immediate 
 war; and the treasury, to the amount 
 of this vote, in addition to all ordinary 
 appropriations, would have been at his 
 absolute disposal also. And all this in 
 a time of peace. I beseech all true 
 lovers of constitutional liberty to con- 
 template this state of things, and tell 
 me whether such be a truly republi- 
 can administration of this government. 
 Whether particvdar consequences had 
 ensued or not, is such an accumulation 
 of power in the hands of the executive 
 according to the spirit of our system? 
 Is it either wise or safe? Has it any 
 warrant in the practice of former times ? 
 Or are gentlemen ready to establish the 
 practice, as an example for the benefit 
 of those who are to come after us? 
 
 But, Sir, if the power to make re- 
 prisals, and this money from the treas- 
 ury, had both been granted, is there 
 not great reason to believe tliat we 
 should have been now actually at war? 
 I think there is great reason to believe 
 this. It will be said, I know, that if 
 we had armed the President with this 
 power of war, and supplied him with 
 this grant of money, France would have 
 taken it for sucli a proof of spirit on our 
 part, that she would have paid the in- 
 denniity without further delay. Tliis ia 
 the old story, and the old plea. It is tlie 
 excuse of every one who desires more 
 
ON THE LOSS OF THE FORTIFICATION BILL IN 1835. 421 
 
 power than the Constitution or the laws 
 give him, that if he liad more power he 
 could do more good. Power is always 
 claimed for the good of the people ; and 
 dictators are always made, when made 
 at all, for the good of the people. For 
 my part, Sir, I was content, and am 
 content, to show France that we are 
 prepared to maintain our just rights 
 against her by the exertion of our 
 power, when need be, according to the 
 forms of our own Constitution; that, if 
 we make war, w'e will make it constitu- 
 tionally ; and that we will trust all out in- 
 terests, both in peace and war, to what 
 
 - the intelligence and the strength of the 
 country may do for them, without break- 
 ing down or endangering the fabric of 
 our free institutions. 
 
 Mr. President, it is the misfortune of 
 the Senate to have differed with the ex- 
 ecutive on many great questions during 
 the last four or five years. I have re- 
 gretted this state of things deeply, both 
 on personal and on public accounts; 
 but it has been unavoidable. It is no 
 pleasant employment, it is no holiday 
 business, to maintain opposition against 
 power and against majorities, and to 
 contend for stern and sturdy principle, 
 
 • against personal popularity, against a 
 rushing and overwhelming confidence, 
 that, by wave upon wave and cataract 
 
 after cataract, seems to be bearing 
 away and destroying whatsoever would 
 withstand it. How much longer we 
 may be able to support this opposition 
 in any degree, or whether we can possi- 
 bly hold out till the public intelligence 
 and the public patriotism shall be 
 awakened to a due sense of the public 
 danger, it is not for me to foretell. I 
 shall not despair to the last, if. in the 
 mean time, we are true to our own 
 principles. If there be a steadfast ad- 
 herence to these principles, both Jiere 
 and elsewhere, if, one and all, they 
 continue the rule of our conduct in the 
 Senate, and the rallying-point of those 
 who think with us and support us out 
 of the Senate, I am content to hope on 
 and to struggle on. While it remains 
 a contest for the preservation of the 
 Constitution, for the security of public 
 liberty, for the ascendency of principles 
 over men, I am willing to bear my part 
 of it. If we can maintain the Constitu- 
 tion, if we can preserve this security 
 for liberty, if we can thus give to true 
 principle its just superiority over party, 
 over persons, over names, our labors 
 will be richly rewarded. If we fail in 
 all this, they are already among the 
 living who will ^vTite the history of this 
 government, from its commencement to 
 its close. 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 k SPEECH DELIVERED AT NIBLO'S SALOON, IN NEW YORK, ON THE 15tu 
 
 OF MARCH, 1837. 
 
 Mr. Chaiumax and Fellow-Citi- 
 zens : — It would be idle in me to af- 
 fect to be indifferent to the circumstances 
 uniler which I have now the honor of 
 addressing you. 
 
 I find myself in the commercial me- 
 tropolis of the continent, in the midst 
 of a vast assembly of intelligent men, 
 drawn from all the classes, professions, 
 and pursuits of life. 
 
 And you have been pleased, Gentle- 
 men, to meet me, in this imposing man- 
 ner, and to offer me a warm and cordial 
 welcome to your city. I thank you. I 
 feel the full force and importance of this 
 manifestation of your regard. In the 
 highly-flattering resolutions which in- 
 vited me liere, in the respectability of 
 this vast multitude of my fellow-citi- 
 zens, and in the approbation and hearty 
 good-will which you have here mani- 
 fested, I feel cause for profound and 
 grateful acknowledgment. 
 
 To every individual of this meeting, 
 therefore, I would now most respectfully 
 make that acknowledgment; and with 
 every one, as with hands joined in mu- 
 tual greeting, I reciprocate friendly salu- 
 tation, respect, and good wishes. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, although I am well 
 assured of your personal regard, I can- 
 not fail to know, that the times, the 
 jiolitical and commercial condition of 
 things which exists among us, and an 
 intrlligent spirit, awakened to new ac- 
 tivity and a new degree of anxiety, have 
 mainly contributed to fill these avenues 
 and crowd these halls. At a moment of 
 dilliculty, and of much alarm, you come 
 
 here as Whigs of Xew York, to meet 
 one whom you believe to be bound to 
 you by common principles and common 
 sentiments, and pursuing, with you, a 
 common object. Gentlemen, I am proud 
 to admit this community of our princi- 
 ples, and this identity of our objects. 
 You are for the Constitution of the 
 country; so am I. You are for the 
 Union of the States ; so am I. You are 
 for equal laws, for the equal rights of 
 all men, for constitutional and just re- 
 straints on power, for the substance and 
 not the shadowy image only of popular 
 institutions, for a government which has 
 liberty for its spirit and soul, as well as , 
 in its forms; and .so am I. You feel 
 that if, in warm party times, the execu- 
 tive power is in hands distinguished for 
 boldness, for great success, for persever- 
 ance, and other qualities which strike 
 men's minds strongly, there is danger 
 of derangement of the powers of gov- 
 ernment, danger of a new division of 
 those powers, in which the executive is 
 likely to obtain the lion's part; and 
 danger of a state of things in which the 
 more popidar branches of the govern- 
 ment, instead of being guards and sen- 
 tinels against any encroachments from 
 the executive, seek, rather, support from 
 its patronage, safety against the com- 
 plaints of the people in its ample and 
 I all-protecting favor, and refuge in its 
 power; and so I feel, and so I have felt 
 for eight long and anxious years. 
 
 You believe that a very efficient and 
 powerfid cause in tlie production of the 
 evils which now fall on the industrious 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 423 
 
 and commercial classes of the commu- 
 nity, is the derangement of the cur- 
 rency, the destruction of the exchanges, 
 and tlie unnatural and unnecessary tiiis- 
 placement of the specie of the country, 
 by unauthorized and illegal treasury or- 
 ders. So do 1 believe. 1 predicted all 
 this from the beginning, and from be- 
 fore the beginning. I predicted it all, 
 last spring, when that was attempted to 
 be done by law which was afterwards 
 done by executive authority; and from 
 the moment of the exercise of that ex- 
 ecutive authority to the present time, I 
 have both foreseen and seen the regular 
 progress of things under it, from incon- 
 venience and embai'rassment, to pres- 
 sure, loss of confidence, disorder, and 
 bankruptcies. 
 
 Gentlemen, I mean, on this occasion, 
 to speak my sentiments freely on the 
 gi'eat topics of the day. I have nothing 
 to conceal, and shall therefore conceal 
 nothing. In regard to political senti- 
 ments, purposes, or objects, there is 
 nothing in my heart which I am 
 ashamed of; I shall throw it all open, 
 therefore, to you, and to all men. [That 
 is right, said some one in the crowd; 
 let us have it, with no non-committal.] 
 Yes, my fi-iend, without non-committal 
 or evasion, without barren generalities 
 or empty phrase, witliout ifov bui, with- 
 out a single touch, in all I say, bearing 
 the oracular cliaracter of an Inaugural, 
 I shall, on this occasion, speak my mind 
 plainly, freely, and independently, to 
 men who are just as free to concur or 
 not to concur in my sentiments, as I am 
 to utter them. I think you are entitled 
 to hear my opinions freely and frankly 
 spoken ; but I freely acknowledge that you 
 are still more clearly entitled to retain, 
 and nuiintain, your own opinions, how- 
 ever they may differ or agree wdth mine. 
 It is ti-ue, (lentlemen, that I have 
 contemplated the relinquishment of my 
 seat in the Senate for the residue of the 
 term, now two years, for which I was 
 chosen. This resolution was not taken 
 from disgust or discouragement, al- 
 though some things have certainly hap- 
 pened which might excite both those 
 feelings. But in popular governments. 
 
 men must not suffer themselves to be 
 permanently disgusted by occasional ex- 
 hibitions of political harlequinism, or 
 deeply discouraged, although their ef- 
 forts to awaken the people to what they 
 deem ttie dangerous tendency of public 
 measures be not crowned with immedi- 
 ate success. It was altogether from 
 other causes, and other considerations, 
 that, after an uninterrupted service of 
 fourteen or fifteen years, I naturally 
 desired a respite. But those whose 
 opinions I am bound to respect saw 
 objections to a present withdrawal from 
 Congi-ess; and I have yielded my own 
 strong desire to their convictions of 
 wliat the public good requires. 
 
 Gentlemen, in speaking here on the 
 subjects which now so much interest the 
 community, I wish in the outset to dis- 
 claim all personal disrespect towards 
 individuals. He ' whose character and 
 fortune have exercised such a decisive 
 influence on our politics for eight years, 
 has now retired from public station. I 
 pursue him with no personal reflections, 
 no reproaches. Between him and my- 
 self there has always existed a respect- 
 ful personal intercourse. Moments have 
 existed, indeed, critical and decisive 
 upon the general success of his adminis- 
 tration, in which he has been pleased to 
 regard my aid as not altogether unim 
 portant. I now speak of him re.spect- 
 fully, as a distinguished soldier, as one 
 who, in that chai'acter, has done the 
 state much service; as a man, too, of 
 strong and decided character, of unsub- 
 dued resolution and perseverance in 
 whatever he undertakes. In speaking 
 of his civil administration, I speak 
 without censoriousness, or harsh impu- 
 tation of motives; I wish him health 
 and happiness in his retirement; but I 
 must still speak as I think of his public 
 measures, and of their general bearing 
 and tendency, not only on the present 
 interests of the country, but also on the 
 well-being and security of the govern- 
 ment itself. 
 
 There are, however, some topics of a 
 less urgent present application and im- 
 portance, upon which I wish to say a fp\r 
 
 1 President Jackson. 
 
424 
 
 RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 words, before I advert to those which 
 are more immediately connected with 
 the present distressed state of things. 
 
 My learned and highly-valued friend 
 (Mr. Ogden) who has addressed me in 
 your behalf, has been kindly pleased 
 to speak of my political career as being 
 marked by a freedom from local inter- 
 ests and prejudices, and a devotion to 
 liberal and comprehensive views of pub- 
 lic policy. 
 
 I will not say that this compliment is 
 di served. I will only say, that I have 
 earnestly endeavored to deserve it. Gen- 
 tlemen, the general government, to the 
 extent of its power, is national. It is 
 not consolidated, it does not embrace all 
 powers of government. On the con- 
 traiT, it is delegated, restrained, strictly 
 limited. 
 
 But what powers it does possess, it 
 possesses for the general, not for any 
 partial or local good. It extends over a 
 vast territory, embracing now six-and- 
 twenty States, with interests various, 
 but not irreconcilable, infinitely diver- 
 sified, but capable of being all blended 
 into political harmony. 
 
 He, however, who would produce this 
 harmony must survey the whole field, 
 as if all parts were as interesting to 
 himself as they are to others, and with 
 that generous, patriotic feeling, prompter 
 and better than the mere dictates of cool 
 reason, which leads him to embrace the 
 whole with affectionate regard, as con- 
 stituting, altogether, that object which 
 he is so much bound to respect, to de- 
 fend, and to love, — his country. "We 
 have around us, and more or less within 
 the influence and protection of the gen- 
 eral government, all the great interests 
 of agriculture, navigation, commerce, 
 maimfuctures, the fisheries, and the me- 
 chanic arts. The duties of the govern- 
 ment, then, certainly extend over all 
 liiis territory, and embrace all these vast 
 interests. We have a maritime frontier, 
 u sea-coast of many thousand miles ; and 
 while no one doubts that it is the duty 
 of government to defend this cotist by 
 suitable military preparations, there are 
 those wlio yet suppose that the ix)wors 
 of government stop at this point j and 
 
 that as to works of peace and works ot 
 improvement, they are beyond our con- 
 stitutional limits. I have ever thought 
 otherwise. Congress has a right, no 
 doubt, to declare war, and to provide 
 armies and navies; and it has necessa- 
 rily the right to build fortifications and 
 batteries, to protect the coast from the 
 effects of war. But Congress has au- 
 thority also, and it is its duty, to regu- 
 late commerce, and it has the whole 
 power of collecting duties on imiwrts 
 and tonnage. It must have ports and 
 harbors, and dock-yards also, for its 
 navies. Very earlj' in the histoi-y of the 
 government, it was decided by Congress, 
 on the report of a highly respectable 
 committee, that the transfer by the 
 States to Congress of the power of col- 
 lecting tonnage and other duties, and 
 the grant of the authority to regulate 
 commerce, charged Congress, necessa- 
 rily, with the duty of maintaining such 
 piers and wharves and lighthouses, and 
 of making such improvements, as might 
 have been expected to be done by the 
 States, if they had retained the usual 
 means, by r taining the power of col- 
 lecting duties on imports. The States, 
 it was admitted, had parted with this 
 power; and the duty of protecting and 
 facilitating commerce by these means 
 had passed, along with this power, into 
 other hands. I have never hesitated, 
 therefore, when the state of the treasury 
 would admit, to vote for reasonable 
 ajipropriations, for breakwaters, light- 
 houses, piers, harbors, and similar pub- 
 lic works, on any part of the wliole 
 Atlantic coast or the Gulf of Mexico, 
 f rom M aine to Jjouisiana. 
 r^But how stands the inland frontier ? 
 IIow is it along the vast lakes and the 
 mighty rivers of the North and West ? 
 Do our constitutional rights and duties 
 terminate where the water ceases to be 
 salt ? or do they exist, in f uU vigor, on 
 the shores of these inland seas ? I never 
 could doubt about this; and yet. Gen- 
 tlemen, I remember even to have parti- 
 cipated in a warm debate, in tlie Senate, 
 some yeirs ago, upon the constitutional 
 right of Congress to make an approj^ria- 
 tion for a pier in tlie harbor of Buffalo. 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 42.1 
 
 \Yhdt! make a harbor at Buffalo, where 
 Nature never made any, and where tliere- 
 fore it was never intended any ever 
 ehoukl be made! Take money from the 
 people to run out piers from the sandy 
 shores of Lake Erie, or deepen the chan- 
 nels of her shallow rivei's! Where was 
 the constitutional authority for this ? 
 "Where would such strides of power stop? 
 How long would the States have any 
 power at all left, if their territory might 
 be ruthlessly invaded for such unhal- 
 lowed purposes, or how long would the 
 people have any money in their pockets, 
 if the government of the United States 
 might tax them, at pleasure, for such 
 extravagant projects as these ? Piers, 
 wharves, harbors, and breakwaters in 
 the Lakes I These arguments. Gentle- 
 men, however earnestly put forth here- 
 tofore, do not strike us with great power, 
 at the present day, if we stand on the 
 shores of Lake Erie, and see hundi'eds 
 of vessels, with valuable cargoes and 
 thousands of valuable lives, moving on 
 its waters, with few shelters from the 
 storm, except what is fm-nished by the 
 havens created, or made useful, by 
 the aid of government. These gi'eat 
 lakes, stretching away many thousands 
 of miles, not in a straight line, but with 
 tm-us and deflections, as if designed to 
 reach, by water commmiication, the 
 greatest possible number of important 
 points through a region of vast extent, 
 cannot but arrest the attention of any 
 one who looks uj)on the map. They lie 
 connected, but variously placed ; and in- 
 terspersed, as if with studied variety of 
 form and direction, over that part of the 
 country. They were made for man, and 
 admirably adapted for his use and con- 
 venience. Looking, Gentlemen, over 
 our whole country, comprehending in 
 our survey the Atlantic coa^it, with its 
 tliick population, its advanced agricul- 
 ture, its extended commerce, its manu- 
 fatitures and mechanic arts, its varie- 
 ties of communication, its wealth, and 
 its general improvements; and looking, 
 then, to the interior, to the immense 
 tracts of fresh, fertile, and cheap lands, 
 bounded by so many lakes, and watered 
 by so many magnificent rivers, let me 
 
 ask if such a map was ever before pre- 
 sented to the eye of any statesman, as 
 the theatre for the exercise of his wis- 
 dom and patriotism ? And let me ask, 
 too, if any man is fit to act a part, on such 
 a theatre, who does not comprehend the 
 whole of it within the scope of his policy, 
 and embrace it all as his country ? 
 
 Again, Gentlemen, we are one in re- 
 spect to the glorious Constitution midei 
 which we live. MVe are all united iu 
 the great brotherhood of American lib- 
 erty. Descending from the same ances- 
 tors, bred in the same school, taught in 
 infancy to imbibe the same general po- 
 litical sentiments, Americans all, by 
 bu'th, education, and principle, what but 
 a narrow mind, or woful ignorance, or 
 besotted selfishness, or prejudice ten 
 times blinded, can lead any of us to re- 
 gard the citizens of any part of the coun- 
 try as strangers and aliens ? 
 
 The solemn truth, moreover, is before 
 us, that a common political fate attends 
 us all. 
 
 Under the present Constitution, wisely 
 and conscientiously administered, all are 
 safe, happy, and renowned. The meas- 
 m-e of our country's fame may fill all 
 our breasts. It is fame enough for us 
 all to partake in her glory, if we will 
 carry her character onward to its true 
 destiny. But if the system is broken, 
 its fragments must fall alike on all. 
 Not only the cause of American liberty, 
 but the gi-and cause of liberty through- 
 out the whole earth, depends, in a 
 great measme, on upholding the Con- 
 stitution and Union of these States. Lf 
 shattered and destroyed, no matter by 
 what cause, the peculiar and cherished 
 idea of United American Liberty will be 
 no more for ever. There may be free 
 states, it is possible, when tliere shall be 
 separate states. There may be many 
 loose, and feeble, and hostile confedera- 
 cies, where there is now one great and 
 united confederacy. But the noble idea 
 of United American Liberty, of ow lib- 
 erty, such as our fathers established it, 
 will be extinguished for ever. Frag- 
 ments and shattered columns of the edi- 
 fice may be found remaining; and mel- 
 ancholy and moui-uf ul ruins will they b& 
 
426 
 
 RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 The august temple itself will be pros- 
 trate in the dust. Gentlemen, the citi- 
 rens of this republic cannot sever tlieir 
 fortunes. A common fate awaits us. 
 In the .\onor of upholding, or iu the dis- 
 grace of undermining the Constitution, 
 we shall all necessarily partake. Let us 
 then stand by the Constitution as it is, 
 and by our country as it is, one, united, 
 and entire; let it be a truth engraven on 
 our hearts, let it be borne on the flag 
 under which we rally, in every exigency, 
 that \^e have one Couxtky, one Con- 
 stitution, ONE Destiny. 
 
 Gentlemen, of our interior adminis- 
 tration, the public lands constitute a 
 highly important part. This is a sub- 
 ject of great interest, and it ought to at- 
 tract much more attention than it has 
 hitherto received, especially from the 
 peoj^le of the Atlantic States. The pub- 
 lic lands are public property. They be- 
 long to the people of all the States. A 
 vast portion of them is composed of ter- 
 ritories which were ceded by individual 
 States to the United States, after the 
 close of the Revolutionary war, and be- 
 fore the adoption of the present Consti- 
 tution. The history of these cessions, 
 and the reasons for making them, are 
 familiar to you. Some of the Old Thii-- 
 teen possessed large tracts of unsettled 
 lands within their chartered limits. The 
 Revolution had established their title to 
 these lands, and as the Revolution had 
 been brought about by the common 
 treasure and the common blood of all 
 the Colonies, it was thought not unrea- 
 sonable that these unsettled lands should 
 be transferred to the United States, to 
 pay the debt created by the war, and 
 afterwards to remain as a fund for the 
 use cf all the States. This is the weli- 
 kncwn origin of the title possessed by 
 the Ui ited States to lands northwest of 
 the River Ohio. 
 
 By treaties with France and Spain, 
 Louisiana and Florida, containing many 
 millions of acres of public land, have 
 been since acquired. The cost of these 
 acipiisitions was paid, of course, by the 
 Ceneral government, and was thus a 
 unarge upon the whole people. The 
 
 public lands, therefore, all and singu- 
 lar, are national prof)erty; granted to 
 tlie United States, purchased by the 
 United States, paid for by all the peo- 
 ple of the United States. 
 
 The idea, that, when a new State is 
 created, the public lands '.yiag vrithin 
 her territory become the property of .^uch 
 new State in consequence of her sover- 
 eignty, is too preposterous for serious 
 refutation. Such notions have hereto- 
 fore been advanced in Congress, but no- 
 body has sustained them. They were 
 rejected and abandoned, although one 
 cannot say whether tliey may not be re- 
 vived, iu consequence of recent proi> 
 ositions which have been made iu ti.e 
 Senate. The new States are admittod 
 on express conditions, recogiiizing, to 
 the fullest extent, the right of the United 
 States to the public lauds within their 
 borders; and it is no more reasonable 
 to contend that some indefinite idea of 
 State sovereignty overrides all these stip- 
 ulations, and makes the lands the prop- 
 erty of the States, against the pro\-isions 
 and conditions of their own constitu- 
 tion, and the Constitution of the United 
 States, than it would be, that a similar 
 doctrine entitled the State of Xew York 
 to the money collected at the custom- 
 house in this city; since it is no more 
 inconsistent with sovereignty that one 
 government should hold huids, for the 
 purpose of sale, within tlie territory of 
 another, than it is that it should lay and 
 collect taxes and duties within such ter- 
 ritoiy. ^\'hatever extravagant preten- 
 sions may have been set up heretofore, 
 there was not, I suppose, an enlightened 
 man in the whole West, who insisted on 
 any such right in the States, when the 
 proposition to cede the lands to th^ 
 States was made, iu the late session of 
 Congi-ess. The public lands being, there- 
 fore, the common property of all the 
 people of all the States, I shall never 
 consent to give them away to particular 
 States, or to dispose of them otherwise 
 than for the general good, and the gen- 
 eral use of the whole country. 
 
 I felt bound, therefore, on the occa- 
 sion just alluded to, to resist at Ui-i 
 threshold a proposition to cede the pui/- 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 427 
 
 lie lands to the States in which they lie, 
 on certain conditions. I very ninch re- 
 gretted the introduction of such a meas- 
 nre, as its effect must be, I fear, only to 
 agitate ■what was well settled, and to dis- 
 turb that course of proceeding, in regard 
 to the pu)>lic lands, which forty years of 
 experience havr shown to be so wise, 
 and so satisfactory in its operation, both 
 to the people of the old States and to 
 those of the new. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, although the public 
 lands are net to be given away, nor 
 ceded to particular States, a very liberal 
 policy in regard to them ought certainly 
 to prevail. Such a policy has prevailed, 
 and I have steadily supported it, and 
 shall continue to support it so long as I 
 may remain in public life. The main 
 object, in regard to tliese lands, is un- 
 doubtedly to settle them, so fast as the 
 growth of our population, and its aug- 
 mentation by emigration, may enable us 
 to settle them. 
 
 The lands, therefore, should be sold, 
 at a low price; and, for one, I have 
 never doubted the right or expediency 
 of granting portions of the lands them- 
 selves, or of making grants of money 
 for objects of internal improvement con- 
 nected with them. 
 
 I have always supported liberal ap- 
 propriations for the purpose of opening 
 communicatvns to and through these 
 lands, by common roads, canals, and 
 railroads; and where lands of little value 
 have been long in market, and, on ac- 
 count of their indifferent quality, are not 
 likely to command a common price, I 
 know no objection to a reduction of 
 price, as to such lands, so that they may 
 pass into private ownership. Nor do I 
 feel any objections to removing those 
 restraints which prevent the States from 
 taxing the lands for five years after they 
 are sold. But while, in these and all 
 other respects, I am not only reconciled 
 to a liberal policy, but espouse it and 
 support it, and have constantly done 
 60, 1 still hold the national domain to 
 be the general projierty of the country, 
 confined to the care of Congress, and 
 which Congress is solemnly bound to pro- 
 tect and preserve for the common good. 
 
 The benefit derived from the public 
 lands, after all, is, and must be, in the 
 greatest degree, enjoyed by those who 
 buy them and settle upon them. Th<» 
 original price paid to government con- 
 stitutes but a small part of their actual 
 value. Their immediate rise in value, 
 in the hands of the settler, gives him 
 competence. He exercises a power of 
 selection ovei" a vast region of fertile ter- 
 ritory, all on sale at the same price, and 
 that price an exceedingly low one. Se- 
 lection is no sooner made, cultivation is 
 no sooner begun, and the first furrow 
 turned, than he already finds himself a 
 man of property. These are the advan- 
 tages of Western emigrants and West- 
 ern settlers; and they are such, certainly, 
 as no country on earth ever before af- 
 forded to her citizens. This opportu- 
 nity of purchase and settlement, this 
 certainty of enhanced value, these sure 
 means of immediate competence and ul 
 tiraate wealth, — all these are the rights 
 and the blessings of the people of the 
 West, and they have my hearty wishes 
 for their full and perfect enjoyment. 
 
 I desire to see the public lands culti- 
 vated and occupied. I desire tlie growth 
 and prosperity of the West, and the full- 
 est development of its vast and extraor- 
 dinary resources. I wish to bring it near 
 to us, by every species of useful commu- 
 nication. I see, not without admiration 
 and amazement, but yet without envy or 
 jealousy. States of recent origin already 
 containing more people than ]\Iassachu- 
 setts. These people I know to be part of 
 ourselves ; they have proceeded from the 
 midst of us, and we may trust that they 
 are not likely to separate themselves, in 
 interest or in feeling, from their kindred, 
 whom they have left on the farms ar.d 
 around the hearths of their common 
 fathers. 
 
 A liberal policy, a sympathy with its 
 interests, an enlightened and generous 
 feeling of participation in its prosperity, 
 are due to the West, and will be met, 1 
 doubt not, by a return of sentiments 
 equally cordial and equally patriotic. 
 
 Gentlemen, the general question of 
 revenue is very much connected with 
 this subject of the public lauds, and J 
 
4l'8 
 
 RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 will therefore, in a very few words, ex- 
 press my views on that point. 
 
 The revenue involves, not only tlie 
 supply of the treasury with money, but 
 the question of protection to manufac- 
 tures. On these connected subjects, 
 therefore. Gentlemen, as I have prom- 
 ised to keep nothing back, I will state 
 iQj opi -lions plainly, but very shortly. 
 
 I am in favor of such a revenue as 
 shall be equal to all the just and reason- 
 able wants of the government; and I 
 am decidedly opposed to all collection 
 or accumulation of revenue beyond this 
 point. An extravagant government ex- 
 penditure, and unnecessary accumula- 
 tion in the treasury, are both, of all 
 things, to be most studiously avoided. 
 
 I am in favor of protecting American 
 industry and labor, not only as employed 
 in large manufactories, but also, and 
 more especially, as employed in the va- 
 rious mechanic arts, carried on by per- 
 sons of small capitals, and living by the 
 earnings of their own personal industry. 
 Every city in the Union, and none more 
 than this, would feel severely the conse- 
 quences of departing from the ancient 
 and continued policy of the government 
 respecting this last branch of protec- 
 tion. If duties were to be abolished on 
 hats, boots, shoes, and other articles of 
 leather, and on the articles fabricated 
 of brass, tin, and iron, and on ready- 
 made clothes, carriages, furniture, and 
 many similar articles, thousands of per- 
 sons would be immediately thrown out 
 of employment in this city, and in other 
 parts of the Union. Protection, in this 
 respect, of our own labor against tlie 
 cheaper, ill-paid, half-fed, and pauper 
 labor of Europe, is, in my opinion, a 
 duty which the country owes to its own 
 citizens. I am, therefore, decidedly for 
 protecting our own industry and our 
 5\\u labor. 
 
 In the next place. Gentlemen, I am 
 of opinion, that, with no more than 
 usual skill in the application of tlie 
 wi'll-tried [irinciples of discriminating 
 and specific duties, all tlie branches of 
 national industry may be protected, 
 without imposing such duties on im- 
 ports as shall overcharge the treasury. 
 
 And as to the revenues arising from 
 the sales of the public lands, I am of 
 opinion that they ought to be set apart 
 for the use of the States. The States 
 need the money. The government of 
 the United States does not need it. 
 Many of the States have contracted 
 large debts for objects of internal im- 
 provement, and others of them hav? 
 important objects which they would 
 wish to accomplish. The lands w<ire 
 originally granted for the use of tlie 
 several States; and now that their pro- 
 ceeds are not necessary for the purposes 
 of the general government, I am of opin- 
 ion that they should go to the States, 
 and to the people of the States, upon an 
 equal principle. Set apart, then, the 
 proceeds of the public lands for the use 
 of the States; supply the treasury fr&ra 
 duties on imports; apply to these duties 
 a just and careful discrimination, in 
 favor of articles produced at home by 
 our own labor, and thus support, to 
 a fair extent, our own manufactures. 
 These, Gentlemen, appear to me to be 
 the general outlines of that policy which 
 the present condition of the country re- 
 quires us to adopt. 
 
 Gentlemen, proposing to express opin- 
 ions on the principal subjects of interest 
 at the present moment, it is impossible 
 to overlook the delicate question which 
 has arisen from events which have hap- 
 pened in the late ^lexican province of 
 Texas. The independence of that prov- 
 ince has now been recognized by the 
 government of the United States. Con- 
 gress gave the President the means, to 
 be used when he saw fit, of opening a 
 diplomatic intercourse with its govern- 
 ment, and the late President imme- 
 diately made u&e of those means. 
 
 I .saw no objection, under the circum- 
 stances, to voting an ajjpropriation to be 
 used when the President should think the 
 proper time had come; and he deemed, 
 very promptly, it is true, tliat the time 
 had already arrived. Certainly, Gentlf- 
 men, the history of Texas is not a little 
 wonderful. A very few people, in a 
 very short time, have establislied a gov 
 ernment for themselves, against the au- 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 429 
 
 thority of the parent state; and tliis 
 government, it is generally supposed, 
 there is little probability, at the present 
 moment, of the parent state being able 
 to overturn. 
 
 This government is, in form, a copy 
 of our own. It is an American consti- 
 tution, substantially after the great 
 American model. We all, therefore, 
 must wish it success; and there is no 
 one who will more heartily rejoice than 
 I shall, to see an independent com- 
 munity, intelligent, industrious, and 
 friendly towards us, springing up, and 
 rising into happiness, distinction, and 
 power, upon our own principles of lib- 
 erty and government. 
 
 But it cannot be disguised, Gentle- 
 men, that a desire, or an intention, is 
 already nuxnifestod to annex Texas to 
 the United States. On a subject of 
 such mighty magnitude as this, and nt 
 a moment when the public attention is 
 drawn to it, I should feel myself want- 
 ing in candor, if I did not express rpy 
 opinion; since all must suppose that, on 
 such a question, it is impossible that I 
 should be without some opinion. 
 
 I say then. Gentlemen, in all frank- 
 ness, that I see objections, I think 
 insurmountable objections, to the an- 
 nexation of Texas to the United States. 
 AVhen the Constitution was formed, it 
 is not probable that either its framers 
 or the people ever looked to the admis- 
 sion of any States into the Union, ex- 
 cept such as then already existed, and 
 such as should be formed out of terri- 
 tories then already belonging to the 
 United States. Fifteen years after the 
 adoption of the Constitution, however, 
 the case of Louisiana arose. Louisiana 
 was obtained by treaty with France, w^ho 
 had recently obtained it from Spain; 
 but the object of this acquisition, cer- 
 tainly, was not mere extension of terri- 
 tory. Other great political interests 
 were connected with it. Spain, while 
 she possessed Louisiana, had held the 
 mouths of the gi-eat rivers which rise in 
 the Western States, and flow into the 
 Gulf of Mexico. She had disputed our 
 use of these rivers already, and with a 
 powerful nation in possession of these 
 
 outlets to the .sea, it is obvious that the 
 commerce of all tlie West was in danger 
 of perpetual vexation. The command 
 of these rivers to the sea was, tiiere- 
 fore, the great object aimed at in the 
 actpiisition of Louisiana. But that ac- 
 quisition necessarily brought territory 
 along with it, and three States now ex- 
 ist, foimed out of that ancient province. 
 
 A similar policy, and a similar neces- 
 sity, though jierhaps not entirely so ur- 
 gent, led to the acquisition of Florida. 
 
 Now, no such necessity, no such pol- 
 icy, requires the annexation of Texas. 
 The accession of Texas to our territory 
 is not necessary to the full and comj^lete 
 enjoyment of all which we already pos- 
 sess. Her case, therefore, stands upon 
 a footing entirely different from that of 
 Louisiana and Florida. There being 
 no necessity for extending the limits of 
 the Union in that direction, we ought, 
 I think, for numerous and powerful 
 reasons, to be content with our present 
 boundaries. 
 
 Gentlemen, we all see that, by whom- 
 soever possessed, Texas is likely to be a 
 slave-holding country; and I frankly 
 avow my entire unwillingness to do any 
 thing that shall extend the slavery of 
 the African race on this continent, or 
 add other slave-holding States to the 
 Union. When I say that I regard slav- 
 ery in itself as a great moral, social, 
 and political evil, 1 only use language 
 which has been adopted by distinguished 
 men, themselves citizens of slave-holding 
 States. I shall do nothing, therefore, 
 to favor or encourage its further exten- 
 sion. We have slavery already amongst 
 us. The Constitution found it in the 
 Union ; it recognized it, and gave it sol- 
 emn guaranties. To the full extent of 
 these guaranties we are all bound, in 
 honor, in justice, and by the Constitu- 
 tion. All the stipulations contained in 
 the Constitution in favor of the slave- 
 holding States which are already in tlie 
 Union ought to be fulfilled, and, so far 
 as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in 
 the fulness of their spirit and to the ex- 
 actness of their letter. Slavery, as it 
 exists in the States, is beyond the reach 
 of Congress. It is a concern of th* 
 
<k'd() 
 
 RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 Statos theraselves ; they have never sub- 
 ruitted it to Congress, and Congress has 
 no rightful power over it. I shall con- 
 ciu', therefore, in no act, no measure, 
 lio menace, no indication ot purpose, 
 which shall interfere or threaten to in- 
 terfere with the exclusive authority of 
 the several States over the subject of 
 slavery as it exists within their respec- 
 tive limits. All this appears to me to be 
 matter of p.ain and imperative duty. 
 
 But when we come to speak of admit- 
 ting new States, the subject assumes an 
 entirely different aspect. Our rights 
 and our duties are then both different. 
 
 The free States, and all tlie States, 
 are then at liberty to accept or to reject. 
 AVheii it is proposed to bring new mem- 
 bers into this political partnershijj, tlie 
 old members have a right to say on 
 what terms such new partners are to 
 come in, and what they are to bring 
 along with them. In my opinion, the 
 people of the United States will not 
 consent to bring into the Union a new, 
 vastly extensive, and .slave-holding coun- 
 try, large enough for half a dozen or 
 a dozen States. In my opinion, tliey 
 ought not to consent to it. Indeed, I 
 •atn. altogether at a loss to conceive what 
 possible benefit any part of this country 
 can expect to derive from such annexa- 
 tion. Any benefit to any part is at 
 least doubtful and uncertain; the objec- 
 tions are obvious, plain, and strong. 
 On the general question of slavery, a 
 great portion of the community is al- 
 ready strongly excited. The subject 
 has not only attracted attention as a 
 question of politics, but it has struck a 
 far deeper-toned chord. It has arrested 
 the religious feeling of tlie country; it 
 has taken strong hold on the con.sciences 
 of men. He is a rash man indeed, and 
 little conversant with human nature, 
 and especially has he a very erroneous 
 estimate of the character of the people 
 of this country, who supposes that a 
 feeling of this kind is to be trifled with 
 or de.spised. It will assuredly cause it- 
 self to be respected. It may be rea- 
 soned with, it may be made willing, I 
 believe it is entirely willing, to fuHif all 
 existing engagements and all existing 
 
 duties, to uphold and defend the Con 
 stitution as it is established, with what- 
 ever regrets about some provisions which 
 it does actually contain. But to coerce 
 it into silence, to endeavor to restrain 
 its free expression, to seek to compress 
 and confine it, warm as it is, and more 
 heated as such endeavors would inevi- 
 tably render it, — should this be at- 
 tempted, I know nothing, even in the 
 Constitution or in the Union itself, 
 which would not be endangered by the 
 explo.>ion which might follow. 
 
 I see, therefore, no political necessity 
 for the annexation of Texas to the 
 Union; no advantages to be derived 
 from it; and objections to it of a 
 strong, and, in my judgment, decisive 
 character. 
 
 I believe it to be for the interest and 
 happiness of the whole Union to remain 
 as it is, without diminution and with- 
 out addition. 
 
 ^Gentlemen. I pass to other subjects. 
 The rajjid advancement of the execu- 
 tive authority is a topic which has al- 
 ready been alluded to. 
 
 I believe there is serious cause of 
 alarm from this source. I believe the 
 power of the executive has increased, is 
 increasing, and ought now' to be brought 
 back within its ancient constitutional 
 limits. I have nothing to do with the 
 motives which have led to those acts, 
 which I believe to have transcended the 
 boundaries of the Constitution. Good 
 motives may always be assumed, as bad 
 motives may always be imputed. Good 
 intentions will always be pleaded for 
 every assumption of power; but they 
 cannot justify it, even if we were sure 
 that they existed. It is hardly too 
 strong to say, that the Constitution 
 was made to guard the people again.st J 
 the dangers of good intention, real or 
 pretended. When bad intentions are 
 boldly avowed, the people will promptly 
 take care of them.selves. On the other 
 hand, they will always be asked why 
 they should resist or question that exer- 
 cise of power which is so fair in its 
 object, so plausible and patriotic in ai> 
 peai'auce, and which has the public jjood 
 
KECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 431 
 
 alone confessedly in view? Human be- 
 ings, we may be assured, will generally 
 exercise power when they can get it; 
 and they will exercise it most undoubt- 
 edly, in popular governments, under 
 pretences of public safety or high public 
 interest. It may be very possible that 
 good intentions do really sometimes ex- 
 ist when constitutional restraints are 
 disregarded. There are men, in all 
 ages, who mean to exercise power use- 
 fully; but who mean to exercise it. 
 They mean to govern well; but they 
 mean to govern. They promise to be 
 kind masters; but they mean to be mas- 
 tors. They think there need be but 
 little restraint upon themselves. Their 
 notion of the public interest is aj^t to be 
 quite closely connected with their own 
 exercise of authority. They may not, 
 indeed, always understand their own 
 motives. The love of power may sink 
 too deep in their own hearts even for 
 theu" ovni scrutiny, and may pass with 
 themselves for mere patriotism and be- 
 ^ iievolence. / 
 
 A character has been drawn of a veiy 
 eminent citizen of Massachusetts, of 
 the last age, which, though I think it 
 does not entu'ely belong to him, yet verj' 
 well describes a certain class of public 
 men. It was said of this distinguished 
 6on of ^lassachusetts; that in matters 
 of politics and government lie cherished 
 the most kind and benevolent feelings 
 towards the whole earth. He earnestly 
 desired to see all nations well governed; 
 and to bring about this happy result, he 
 wished that the United States might 
 govern the rest of the world ; that Mas- 
 sachusetts might govern the United 
 States; that Boston might govern ^las- 
 sachusetts; and as for himself, his owir 
 humble ambition would be satisfied by 
 governing the little town of Boston. 
 
 I do not intend, Gentlemen, to com- 
 mit so unreasonable a trespass on yom' 
 patience as to discuss all those cases in 
 \\ hich 1 think executive power has been 
 unreasonably extended. I shall only 
 allude to some of them, and, as being 
 earliest in the order of time, and hardly 
 Becond to any other in importance, I 
 
 mention the practice of removal from 
 all oftices, high and low, for opinion's 
 sake, and on the avowed ground of giv- 
 ing patronage to the President; that is 
 to say, of giving him the power of in- 
 fluencing men's political opinions ajul 
 political conduct, by hopes and by feai's 
 addressed directly to their pecuniary in- 
 terests. The gi'eat battle on this point 
 was fought, and was lost, in the Senate 
 of the United States, in the last session 
 of Congress under Mr. Adams's admin- 
 istration. After General Jackson was 
 known to be elected, and before his term 
 of office began, many important offices 
 became vacant by the usual causes of 
 death and resignation. Mr. Adams, of 
 course, nominated persons to fiU these 
 vacant offices. But a majority of the 
 Senate was composed of the friends of 
 General Jackson; and, instead of acting 
 on these nominations, and filling the 
 vacant oflices with ordinary prompti- 
 tude, the nominations were postponed 
 to a day beyond the 4th of March, for 
 the purpose, openly avowed, of giving 
 the patronage of the appointments to 
 the President who was then coming into 
 office. When the new President entered 
 on his office, he withdrew these nomina- 
 tions, and sent in nominations of his 
 own friends in their places. I was of 
 opinion then, and am of opinion now, 
 that that decision of the Senate went far 
 to imfix the proper balance of the gov- 
 ernment. It conferred on the President 
 the power of rewards for party pur- 
 poses, or personal purposes, without 
 limit or control. It sanctioned, mani- 
 festly and plainly, that exercise of power 
 which ]\Ii\ Madison had said would de- 
 serve impeachment; and it completely 
 defeated one gi-eat object, which we are 
 told the framers of the Constitution 
 contemplated, in the manner of forming 
 the Senate; that is, that the Senate 
 might be a body not changing with the 
 election of a President, and therefore 
 likely to be able to hold over him some 
 check or restraint in regard to bringing 
 his own friends and partisans into powei' 
 with hhn, and thus rewardmg their ser- 
 vices to him at the public expense. 
 The debates in the Senate, on these 
 
432 
 
 RECEPTION AT N'EW YORK. 
 
 questions, were long continued and ear- 
 nest. Tliey were of course in secret 
 session, but the opinions of those mem- 
 bers who opposed this course have all 
 been proved true by the result. The 
 contest was severe and ardent, as much 
 so as any that I have ever partaken in ; 
 and / have seen some service in that 
 »ort of warfare. 
 
 Gentlemen, when I look back to that 
 eventful moment, when I remember 
 who those were who upheld this claim 
 for executive power, with so much zeal 
 and devotion, as well as with such great 
 and splendid abilities, and when I look 
 round now, and inquire what has be- 
 come of these gentlemen, where they 
 have found themselves at last, under the 
 power which they thus helped to estab- 
 lish, what has become now of all their 
 respect, trust, confidence, and attach- 
 ment, — how many of them, indeed, have 
 not escaped from being broken and 
 crushed under the weight of the wheels 
 of that engine which they themselves 
 set in motion, — I feel that an edifying 
 lesson may be read by those who, in the 
 freshness and fulness of party zeal, are 
 ready to confer the most dangerous pow- 
 er, in the hope that they and their friends 
 may bask in its sunshine, while enemies 
 only shall be withered by its frown. 
 
 I will not go into the mention of 
 names. I will give no enumeration of 
 persons; but I ask you to turn your 
 minds back, and recollect who the dis- 
 tinguished men were who supported, in 
 the Senate, General Jackson's adminis- 
 tration for the first two years; and I 
 will ask you what you suppose tliey 
 think now of that power and that dis- 
 cretion which they so freely confided to 
 executive hands. What do they think 
 of the whole career of that administra- 
 tion, the commencement of which, and 
 indeed tlie existence of which, owed so 
 much to theii- own great exertions? 
 
 In addition to the establishment of 
 this power of unlimited and causeless 
 removal, another doctrine has been put 
 fortli, more vague, it is true, but alto- 
 gether unconstitutional, and tending to 
 like dangerous results. In some loose, 
 
 indefinite, and unknown sense, the 
 President has been called the representa- 
 tive of the whole American people. He 
 has called himself so repeatedly, and 
 been so denominated by his friends a 
 thousand times. Acts, for which no 
 specific authority has been found either 
 in the Constitution or the laws, have 
 been justified on the ground that the 
 President is the representative of the 
 whole American people. Certainly, this 
 is not constitutional language. Cer- 
 tainly, the Constitution nowhere calls 
 the President the universal representa- 
 tive of the people. The constitutional 
 representatives of the people are in the 
 House of Representatives, exercising 
 powers of legislation. The President is 
 an executive officer, appointed in a par- 
 ticular manner, and clothed with pre- 
 scribed and limited powers. It may be 
 thought to be of no gi-eat consequence, 
 that the President should call himself, 
 or that others should call him, the sole 
 representative of all the peojile, although 
 he has no such appellation or character 
 in the Constitution. But, in these mat- 
 ters, words are things. If he is the 
 people's representative, and as such may 
 exercise power, without any other grant, 
 what is the limit to that power? And 
 what may not an unlimited representa- 
 tive of the people do? When the Consti- 
 tution expressly creates representatives, 
 as members of Congress, it regulates, 
 defines, and limits their authority. But 
 if the executive chief magistrate, merely 
 because he is the executive chief magis- 
 trate, may assume to himself another 
 character, and call himself the repre- 
 sentative of the whole people, what is to 
 lunit or restrain this representative pow- 
 er in his hands? 
 
 I fear, Gentlemen, that if these pre- 
 tensions should be continued and justi- 
 fied, we might have many instances of 
 summary political logic, such as I once 
 heard in the House of Representatives. 
 A gentleman, not now living, wished 
 very much to vote for the establishment 
 of a Bank of the United States, but he 
 had always stoutly denied the constitu- 
 tional power of Congress to create such 
 a bank. Tiie country, however, was in 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 433 
 
 a state of great financial distress, from 
 which such an institution, it was hoped, 
 might help to extricate it; and this con- 
 sideration led the worthy member to re- 
 view his opinions with care and delib- 
 eration. Happily, on such careful and 
 deliberate review, he altered his former 
 judgment. He came, satisfactorily, to 
 the conclusion that Congress might in- 
 torf orate a bank. The argument which 
 brought his mind to this result was 
 short, and so plain and obvious, that 
 he wondered how he should so long have 
 overlooked it. The power, he said, to 
 create a bank, was either given to Con- 
 gress, or it was not given. Very well. 
 If it was given, Congress of course could 
 exercise it; if it was not given, the peo- 
 ple still retained it, and in that case. 
 Congress, as the representatives of the 
 people, might, upon an emergency, make 
 tree to use it. 
 
 Arsruments and conclusions in sub- 
 stance like these. Gentlemen, will not 
 be wanting, if men of gi-eat popularity, 
 commanding characters, sustained by 
 powerful parties, and full of good inten- 
 tions towards the public, may be permitted 
 to call themselves the universal repre- 
 sentatives of the people. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, it is the currency, 
 the currency of the country, — it is this 
 great subject, so interesting, so vital, to 
 all classes of the comnaunity, which has 
 been destined to feel the most violent 
 assaults of executive power. The con- 
 secjuences are around us and upon us. 
 Not unforeseen, not unforetold, here 
 they come, bringing distress for the 
 present, and fear and alarm for the 
 future. If it be denied that the pres- 
 ent condition of things has arisen from 
 the President's interference with the 
 revenue, the first answer is, that, when 
 he did interfere, just such consequences 
 were predicted. It was then said, and 
 repeated, and pressed ujion the public 
 attention, that that interference must 
 necessarily produce derangement, em- 
 barrassment, loss of confidence, and 
 commercial distress. I pray you, Gen- 
 tlemen, to recur to the debates of 1832, 
 IS-i'-i, and 1831, and then to decide 
 whose opinions have proved to be cor- 
 
 rect. "When the treasury experiment 
 was first announced, who supported, 
 and who opposed it? Who ^Yarned the 
 country against it? Who were they who 
 endeavored to stay the violence of party, 
 to arrest the hand of executive author- 
 ity, and to convince the people that this 
 experiment was delusive ; that its object 
 was merely to increase executive power, 
 and that its effect, sooner or later, must 
 be injurious and ruinous? Gentlemen, 
 it is fair to bring the opinions of politi- 
 cal men to the test of experience. It ia 
 just to judge of them by their measures, 
 and their opposition to measm-es; and 
 for myself, and those political friends 
 with whom I have acted, on this subject 
 of the currency, I am ready to abide the 
 test. 
 
 But before the subject of the curren- 
 cy, and its present most embarrassing 
 state, is discussed, I invite your atten- 
 tion. Gentlemen, to the history of execu- 
 tive proceedings connected with it. I 
 propose to state to you a series of facts; 
 not to argue upon them, not to mystify 
 them, nor to draw any unjast inference 
 from them ; but merely to state the case, 
 in the plainest manner, as I understand 
 it. And I wish. Gentlemen, that, in 
 order to be able to do this in the best 
 and most convincing manner, I had the 
 ability of my learned friend, (Mr. Og- 
 den,) whom you have all so often heard, 
 and who usually states his case in such 
 a manner that, when stated, it is already 
 very Avell argued. 
 
 Let us see. Gentlemen, what the train 
 of occurrences has been in regard to our 
 revenue and finances; and when these 
 occurrences are stated, I leave to every 
 man the right to decide for himself 
 whether our present difficulties have or 
 have not arisen from attempts to extend 
 the executive authority. In giving this 
 detail, I shall be compelled to speak of 
 the late Bank of tlie United States ; but 
 I shall speak of it historically only. My 
 opinion of its utility, and of the extraor- 
 dinary ability and success with which its 
 affairs were conducted for many years 
 before the termination of its charter, is 
 well known. I have often expressed it, 
 and I have not altered it. But at pres- 
 
 28 
 
434 
 
 RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 ent I speak of the bank only as it makes 
 a necessary part in the history of events 
 which I wish now to recapitulate. 
 
 ^Ir. Adams commenced his adminis- 
 tration in March, 1825. He had been 
 elected by the House of Representatives, 
 and began his career as President under 
 a powerful opposition. From the very 
 first day, he was warmly, even violently, 
 opposed in all his measures; and this 
 opposition, as we all know, continued 
 without abatement, either in force or 
 asperity, through his whole term ^f four 
 years. Gentlemen, I am not about to 
 -ay whether this opposition was well or 
 ilL founded, just or unjust. I only state 
 the fact as connected with other facts. 
 The Bank of the United States, during 
 these four years of Mr. Adams's admin- 
 istration, was in full operation. It was 
 pe)-forming the fiscal duties enjoined on 
 it by its charter ; it had established 
 numerous offices, was maintaining a 
 large circulation, and transacting a vast 
 business in exchange. Its character, 
 conduct, and manner of administra- 
 tion were all well known to the whole 
 country. 
 
 Now there are two or three things 
 worthy of especial notice. One is, that 
 during the whole of this heated politi- 
 cal controversy, from 1825 to 1829, the 
 party which was endeavoring to produce 
 a change of administration in the gen- 
 eral government brought no charge of 
 political interference against the Bank 
 of the United States. If any thing, it 
 was rather a favorite with that party 
 generally. Certainly, the party, as a 
 party, did not ascribe to it undue at- 
 tachment to other parties, or to the then 
 existing administration. Another im- 
 portant fact is, that, during the whole 
 of tlie same period, those who had es- 
 poased the cause of General Jackson, 
 and who souglit to bring about a revo- 
 lution under his name, did not propose 
 the destruction of the bank, or its dis- 
 continuance, as one of the objects which 
 were to be accomplished by the intended 
 revolutifm. They did not tell the coun- 
 try that the bank was unconstitutional; 
 they did not declare it unnecessary; 
 thev did not propose to get along with- 
 
 out it, when they should come into 
 power themselves. If individuals en- 
 tertained any such purposes, they kept 
 them much to themselves. The party, 
 as a party, avowed none such. A thu-d 
 fact, worthy of all notice, is, that dur- 
 ing this period there was no com] laiut 
 about the state of the currency, either 
 by the country generally or by the party 
 then in opposition. 
 
 In March, 1829, General Jack-son was 
 inaugurated as President. He came 
 into power on professions of reform 
 He announced reform of all abuses to 
 be the great and leading object of his 
 future administration; and in his in- 
 augural address he pointed out the main 
 subjects of this reform. But the bank 
 was not one of them. It was not said 
 by him that the bank was unconstitu- 
 tional. It was not said that it was im- 
 necessary or useless. It was not said 
 that it had failed to do all that had been 
 hoped or expected from it in regard to 
 the currency. 
 
 In March, 1829, then, the bank stood 
 well, very well, with the new adminis- 
 tration. It was regarded, so far as ai^>- 
 pears, as entirely constitutional, free 
 from political or party taint, and highly 
 useful. It had as yet found no place in 
 the catalogue of abuses to be reformed 
 
 But, Gentlemen, nine months wrouglit 
 a wonderful change. New lights broke 
 forth before these months had roUed 
 away; and the President, in his mes- 
 sage to Congress in December, 1829, 
 lield a very unaccustomed language and 
 manifested very unexpected purposes. 
 
 Althougli the bank had then five or 
 six years of its charter unexpired, he 
 yet called the attention of Congress 
 very pointedly to the subject, and de- 
 clared, — 
 
 1. That the constitutionality of tlie 
 bank was well doubted by many; 
 
 2. Tliat its utility or expediency \\a.s 
 also well doubted; 
 
 3. That all must admit that it nad 
 failed to establish or maintain a sound 
 and uniform currency; and 
 
 4. That the true bank for the use of 
 the government of the United States 
 would be a bank which should be 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 435 
 
 founded on the revenues and credit of 
 the government itself. 
 
 These propositions appeared to nie, 
 at the time, as very extraordinary, and 
 the last one as very startling. A bank 
 founded on the revenue and credit of 
 the government, and managed and ad- 
 ministered by the executive, was a con- 
 ception which I had supposed no man 
 jolding ihe chief executive power in 
 ."lis own hands would venture to put 
 forth. 
 
 But the question now is, what had 
 wroiignt this great change of feeling and 
 of purpose in regard to the bank. What 
 events had occurred between March and 
 December that should have caused the 
 bank, so constitutional, so useful, so 
 peaceful, and so safe an institution, in 
 the first of these months, to start up 
 into the character of a monster, and 
 become so horrid and dangerous, in the 
 last? 
 
 Gentlemen, let us see what the events 
 were wliich had intervened. General 
 Jackson was elected in December, 1828. 
 His term was to begin in ^larch, 1829. 
 A session of Congress took place, there- 
 fore, between his election and the com- 
 mencement of his administration. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, the truth is, that 
 during this session, and a little before 
 the commencement of the new adminis- 
 tration, a disposition was manifested 
 by political men to interfere with the 
 management of the bank. Members of 
 Congi-ess undertook to nommate or rec- 
 ommend individuals as directors in the 
 branches or offices of the bank. They 
 were kind enough, sometimes, to make 
 out whole lists, or tickets, and to send 
 them io Philadelphia, containing the 
 name? of those whose appointments 
 w Duld be satisfactory to General Jack- 
 son's friends. Portions of the corre- 
 spondence on these subjects have been 
 published in some of the voluminous 
 .•eports and other documents connected 
 with the bank, but perhaps have not 
 been generally heeded or noticed. At 
 first, the bank merely declined, as gently 
 a,s possible, complying with these and 
 similar requests. But like applications 
 began to shoiv themselves from many 
 
 quarters, and a very marked case arose 
 as early as June, 1829. Certain mem- 
 bers of the Legislature of New Hamp- 
 shire applied for a change iu the 
 presidency of the branch which was 
 established in that State. A member 
 of the Senate of the United States wrote 
 both to the president of the bank and 
 to the Secretary of the Treasury, strong- 
 ly recommending a change, and in his 
 letter to the Secretary hinting very dis- 
 tinctly at political considerations as the 
 ground of the movement. Other officers 
 in the service of the government took 
 an interest in the matter, and urged a 
 change; and the Secretary himself wrote 
 to the bank, suggesting and recommend- 
 ing it. The time had come, then, for 
 the bank to take its position. It did 
 take it; and, in my judgment, if it had 
 not acted as it did act, not only would 
 those who had the care of it have been 
 most highly censurable, but a claim 
 would have been yielded to, entirely in- 
 consistent with a government of laws, 
 and subversive of the very foundations 
 of republicanism. 
 
 A long correspondence between the 
 Secretary of the Treasury and the presi- 
 dent of the bank ensued. The directors 
 determined that they would not surren- 
 der either their rights or their duties to 
 the control or supei-vision of the ex- 
 ecutive government. They said they 
 had never appointed directors of their 
 branches on political grounds, and they 
 would not remove them on such grounds. 
 They had avoided politics. They had 
 sought for men of business, capacity, 
 fidelity, and experience in the manage- 
 ment of pecuniary concerns. They owed 
 duties, they said, to the government, 
 which they meant to perform, faithfully 
 and impartially, under all administra- 
 tions ; and they owed duties to the stock- 
 holders of the bank, which required 
 them to disregard political considera- 
 tions in their appointments. This cor- 
 respondence ran along into the fall of 
 the year, and finally terminated in a 
 stern and unanimous declaration, made 
 by the directors, and transmitted to the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, that the bank 
 would continue to be independently 
 
i'.'Aj 
 
 ICECEPTION AT NEW YORK 
 
 administered, acd that the directors 
 once for all refused to submit to the su- 
 pervision of the executive authority, in 
 any of its brandies, iu the appointment 
 of local directors and agents. This res- 
 olution decided the character of the 
 future. Hostility towards the bank, 
 thenceforward, became the settled policy 
 of the government; and the message of 
 December, 1829, was the clear announce- 
 ment of that policy. K the bank had 
 appointed those directors, thus recom- 
 mended by members of Congress; if it 
 had submitted all its appointments to 
 the supervision of the treasury; if it 
 had removed the president of the New 
 Hampshire branch; if it had, in all 
 things, showed itself a complying, po- 
 litical, party machine, instead of an 
 independent institution ; — if it had 
 done this, I leave all men to judge 
 whether such an entire change of opin- 
 ion, as to its constitutionality, its utility, 
 and its good effects on the currency, 
 would have happened between March 
 anil December. 
 
 From the moment in which the bank 
 asserted its independence of treasury 
 control, and its elevation above mere 
 party purposes, down to the end of its 
 charter, and down even to the present 
 day, it has been the subject to which the 
 selectest phrases of party denunciation 
 have been plentifully applied. 
 
 But Congress manifested no disposi- 
 tion to establish a treasury bank. On 
 the contrary, it was satisfied, and so was 
 the comitry, most unquestionably, with 
 tlie bank then existing. In the sum- 
 mer of 1832, Congress passed an act for 
 continuing the charter of the bank, by 
 strong majorities in both houses. In 
 the House of Representatives, I think, 
 two thirds of tlie members voted for the 
 bill. The President gave it his nega- 
 tive ; and as there were not two thirds of 
 the Senate, though a large majority were 
 for it, the bill failed to become a law. 
 
 But it was not enough that a contin- 
 uance of the charter of the bank was 
 thus rufused. It liad the deposit of the 
 public money, and this it was entitled 
 to, by law, for the few years which vet 
 reiniiiiii'i! of 't^s chartered term. But 
 
 this it was determined it should not 
 continue to enjoy. At the commence- 
 ment of the session of 1832-33, a grave 
 and sober doubt was expressed by the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, in his offi- 
 cial communication, whether the pulilic 
 moneys were safe in the custody of the 
 bank! I confess, Gentlemen, wher J 
 look back to this suggestion, thus olB- 
 cially made, so serious in its impoit, 
 so unjust, if not well founded, and so 
 greatly injurious to the credit of the 
 bank, and injmious, indeed, to the credit 
 of the whole country, I cannot but won 
 der that any man of intelligence and char- 
 acter should have been willing to make 
 it. I read iii it, however, the first lines 
 of another chapter. I saw an attempt 
 was now to be made to remove the de- 
 posits of the public money from the 
 bank, and such an attempt was made 
 that \evy session. But Congress was 
 not to be prevailed upon to accomplish 
 the end by its o'wn authority. It was 
 well ascertained that neither house would 
 consent to it. The House of Represent- 
 atives, indeed, at the heel of the ses- 
 sion, decided against the proposition by 
 a veiy large majority. 
 
 The legislative authority having been 
 thus invoked, and invoked in vain, it 
 was resolved to stretch farther the long 
 arm of executive power, and by that 
 arm to reach and strike the victim. It 
 so happened that I was in this city in 
 May, 1833, and here learned, from a 
 very authentic source, that the deposits 
 would be removed by the President's 
 order; and in June, as afterwards ap- 
 peared, that order was given. 
 
 Now it is obvious, Gentlemen, tliat 
 thus far the changes in our financial and 
 fiscal system were effected, not by Con- 
 gress, but by the executiAe; not by law, 
 but by the will and the power of the 
 President. Congiess would have con- 
 tinued the charter of the bank; but the 
 President negatived the bill. Coiigres? 
 was of opinion that the deposits ought 
 not to be removed; but the President 
 removed them. Nor was this all The 
 public moneys being withdrawn from 
 the custody which the law had provided, 
 by executive power alone, thiit same 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK 
 
 437 
 
 power selected the places for their fu- 
 ture keeping. Particular banks, exist- 
 ing under State charters, were chosen. 
 AVith these especial and particular ar- 
 rangements were made, and the public 
 moneys were deposited in their vaults. 
 Henceforward these selected banks were 
 to operate on the revenue and credit of 
 the government; and thus the original 
 8cheme, promulgated in the annual mes- 
 sage of December, 1829, was substan- 
 tially carried into effect. Here were 
 banks chosen by the treasury; all the 
 arrangements with them made by the 
 treasuiy ; a set of duties to be performed 
 by them to the treasury prescribed ; and 
 these banks were to hold the whole pro- 
 ceeds of the public revenue. In all this, 
 Congi-ess had neither part nor lot. No 
 law had caused the removal of the de- 
 posits ; no law had authorized the selec- 
 tion of deposit State banks ; no law had 
 prescribed the terms on which the rev- 
 enues should be placed in such banks. 
 From the beginning of the chapter to 
 the end, it was all executive edict. And 
 now. Gentlemen, I ask if it be not most 
 remarkable, that, in a countiy prof essing 
 to be under a government of laws, such 
 great and important changes in one of 
 its most essential and vital interests 
 should be brought about without any 
 change of law, without any enactment 
 of the legislature whatever ? Is such a 
 power trusted to the executive of any 
 government in which the executive is 
 separated, by clear and well-defined 
 lines, from the legislative department ? 
 The cm-rency of the country stands on 
 the same general ground as the com- 
 merce of the country. Both are inti- 
 mately connected, and both are subjects 
 of legal, not of executive, regulation. 
 
 It is worthy of notice, that the writers 
 of the Federalist, in discussing the pow- 
 ers which the Constitution conferred on 
 the President, made it matter of com- 
 mendation, that it withdi-aws this sub- 
 ject altogether from his grasp. * ' He 
 can prescribe no rules," say they, " con- 
 cerning the commerce or currency of the 
 coimtrj-." And so we have been all 
 taught to think, under all former ad- 
 miuisti'ations. But we have now seen 
 
 that tho President, and the President 
 alone, does prescribe the rule concern- 
 ing the currency. lie makes it, and he 
 alters it. He makes one rule for one 
 branch of the revenue, and another rule 
 for another. He makes one rule for the 
 citizen of one State, and another for the 
 citizen of another State. This, it is cer- 
 tain, is one part of the treasury order of 
 July last. 
 
 But at last Congi-ess interfered, and 
 imdertook to regulate the deposits of 
 the public moneys. It passed the law 
 of July, 183(J, placing the subject under 
 legal control, restraining the power of 
 the executive, subjecting the banks to 
 liabilities and duties, on the one hand, 
 and securing them against executive fa- 
 voritism, on the other. But this law 
 contained another important provision; 
 which was, that all the money in the 
 treasury, beyond what was necessary for 
 the cm'rent expenditures of the govern- 
 ment, should be deposited with the 
 States. This measure passed both houses 
 by very unusual majorities, yet it hardly 
 escaped a veto. It obtained only a cold 
 assent, a slow, reluctant, and hesitating 
 approval; and an early moment was 
 seized to array against it a long list of 
 objections. But the law passed. The 
 money in the treasury beyond the sum 
 of five millions was to go to the States. 
 It has so gone, and the treasury for the 
 present is relieved from the burden of a 
 sm'plus. But now obsei-ve other coinci- 
 dences. In the annual message of De- 
 cember, 1835, the President quoted the 
 fact of the rapidly increasing sale of the 
 public lands as proof of high national 
 prosperity. He alluded to that subject, 
 certainly with much satisfaction, and 
 apparently in something of the tone 
 of exultation. There was nothing said 
 about monopoly, not a word about spec- 
 ulation, not a word about over-issues of 
 paper, to pay for the lands. All was 
 prosperous, all was full of evidence of a 
 wise administration of government, all 
 was joy and triumph. 
 
 But the idea of a deposit or distribu- 
 tion of the surplus money with the peo- 
 ple suddenly damped this effervescing 
 happiness. The color of the rose waa 
 
4^8 
 
 RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 gone, and every thing now looked gloomy 
 and black. Now no more felicitation or 
 congratulation, on account of the rapid 
 Bales of the public lands; no more of 
 this most decisive proof of national pros- 
 perity and happiness. The executive 
 Muse takes up a melancholy strain. She 
 Biugs of monopolies, of speculation, of 
 worthless paper, of loss both of land and 
 money, of the multiplication of banks, 
 and the danger of paper i.ssues; and the 
 end of the canto, the catastrophe, is, 
 that lands shall no longer be sold but 
 for gold and silver alone. The object 
 of all this is clear enough. It was to 
 diminish the income from the public 
 lands. No desire for such a diminution 
 had been manifested, so long as the 
 money was supposed to be likely to re- 
 main in the treasury. But a growing 
 conviction that some other disposition 
 must be made of the surplus, awakened 
 attention to the means of preventing 
 that surplus. 
 
 Toward the close of the last session. 
 Gentlemen, a proposition was brought 
 forward in Congress for such an altera- 
 tion of the law as should admit payment 
 for public lands to be made in nothing 
 but gold and silver. The mover voted 
 for his own proposition ; but I do not 
 recollect that any otlier member con- 
 curred in the vote. The proposition 
 was rejected at once; but, as in other 
 cases, that which Congress refused to do, 
 the executive power did. Ten days after 
 Congress adjourned, having had tliis mat- 
 ter before it, and having refused to act 
 upon it by making any alteration in the 
 exi.sting laws, a trcasurj' order was is- 
 sued, coninianding that very thing to be 
 done which Congress had been requested 
 and had refused to do. Just as in the 
 case of tlie removal of the deposits, the 
 executive power acted in this case also 
 against the known, well understood, and 
 recently expressed will of the representa- 
 tives of the people. There never has 
 been a moment when the legislative will 
 would have .sanctioned the object of that 
 order; probably never a moment in 
 which any twenty individual members 
 of Congress would Imve concurred in it. 
 The act was done without tiie assent of 
 
 Congress, and against the well-known 
 opinion of Congress. That act altered 
 the law of the land, or purported to alter 
 it, against the well-known will of the 
 law-making power. 
 
 For one, I confess I see no authority 
 whatever in the Constitution, or in any 
 law, for this treasury order. Those who 
 have undertaken to maintain it have 
 placed it on grounds, not only different, 
 but inconsistent and contradictory. The 
 reason which one gives, another rejects; 
 one confutes what another argues. With 
 one it is the joint resolution of 181G 
 which gave the authority; with another, 
 it is the law of 1820; with a third, it is 
 the general superintending power of th.e 
 President; and this last argument, since 
 it resolves itself into mere power, with- 
 out stopping to point out the sources of 
 that power, is not only tlie shortest, but 
 in truth the most just. He is the most 
 sensible, as well as the most candid rea- 
 soner, in my opinion, who places this 
 treasury order on the ground of the pleas- 
 ure of the executive, and stops there. I 
 regard the joint resolution of 1816 as 
 mandatory; as prescribing a legal rule; 
 as putting this subject, in which all have 
 so deep an interest, beyond the caprice, 
 or the arbitrary pleasure, or the discre- 
 tion, of the Secretary of the Treasury. 
 I believe there is not the .slicrhtest lesral 
 authority, either in that officer or in the 
 President, to make a distinction, and to 
 say that paper may be received for debts 
 at the custom-iiouse, but that gold and 
 silver only shall be received at the land 
 offices. And now for the sequel. 
 
 At the commencement of the last ses- 
 sion, as you know% Gentlemen, a resolu- 
 tion was brought forward in the Senate 
 for annulling and abrogating this order, 
 by Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, a gentlem.'ji oi 
 much intelligence, of sound principles, 
 of vigorous and energetic character, 
 whose loss from the sen'ice of the coun- 
 try I regard as a public misfortune. The 
 Whig members all supported this resolu- 
 tion, and all the members, I believe, 
 with the exception of some five or six, 
 were very anxious in some way to get 
 rid of the treasury order. But ^Ir. E\\ 
 ing's resolution was too direct. It wa.« 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 439 
 
 deemed a pointed and ungracious attack 
 on executive policy. It must therefore 
 be softened, modified, qualified, made to 
 sound less harsh to the ears of men in 
 power, and to assume a plausible, pol- 
 ished, inoffensive character. It was ac- 
 cordingly put into the plastic hands of 
 friends of the executive to be moulded 
 and fixsliioned, so that it might have the 
 effect of ridding the country of the ob- 
 noxicus order, and yet not appear to 
 question executive infallibility. All this 
 did not answer. The late President is 
 not a man to be satisfied with soft 
 •words; and he saw in the measure, 
 even as it passed the two houses, a sub- 
 stantial repeal of the order. He is a 
 man ot boldness and decision; and he 
 respects boldness and decision in others. 
 If you are his friend, he expects no 
 flinching; and if you are his adversary, 
 he respects you none the less for carry- 
 ing your opposition to the full limits of 
 honorable warfare. Gentlemen, I most 
 sincerely regi'et the course of the Presi- 
 dent in regard to this biU, and certainly 
 most highly disapprove it. But I do 
 not suffer the mortification of having 
 attempted to disguise and garnish it, in 
 order to make it acceptable, and of still 
 finding it thrown back in my face. AU 
 that was obtained by this ingenious, 
 diplomatic, and over-courteous mode of 
 enacting a law, was a response from 
 the President and the Attorney-General, 
 that the bill in question was obscure, iU 
 penned, and not easy to be understood. 
 The bill, therefore, was neither ap- 
 proved nor negatived. If it had been 
 approved, the treasmy order would have 
 been annulled, though in a clumsy and 
 objeutionable manner. If it had been 
 negatived, and retm-ued to Congress, no 
 doubt it would have been passed by two 
 thirds cf both houses, and in that way 
 have become a law, and abrogated the 
 order. But it was not approved, it was 
 not returned; it was retained. It had 
 passed the Senate in season ; it had been 
 Bent to the House in season ; but there it 
 was suffered to lie so long without being 
 called up, that it was completely in the 
 power of the President when it finally 
 fassed that body; since he is not obliged 
 
 to return bills which he dt>es not ap- 
 prove, if not presented to him ten dayc 
 before tlie end of the session. The bill 
 was lost, therefore, and the treasury 
 order remains in force. Here again the 
 representatives of the people, in both 
 houses of Congress, by majorities almost 
 unprecedented, endeavored to abolish 
 this obnoxious order. On hardly any 
 subject, indeed, has opinion been s/d 
 unanimous, either in or out of Congress. 
 Yet the order remains. 
 
 And now, Gentlemen, I ask you, and 
 I ask all men who have not voluntarily 
 surrendered aU power and all right of 
 thinking for themselves, whether, from 
 1832 to the present moment, the execu- 
 tive authority has not effectually super- 
 seded the .power of Congress, thw-arted 
 the will of the representatives of the 
 people, and even of the people them- 
 selves, and taken the whole subject ol 
 the currency into its own grasp? In 
 1832, Congress desired to continue the 
 bank of the United States, and a major- 
 ity of the peojple desired it also ; but the 
 President opposed it, and his will pre- 
 vailed. In 1833, Congress refused to 
 remove the deposits; the President re- 
 solved upon it, however, and his will 
 prevailed. Congress has never been 
 willing to make a bank founded on the 
 money and credit of the government, 
 and administered, of course, by execu- 
 tive hands ; but this was the President's 
 object, and he attained it, in a great 
 measure, by the treasury selection of de- 
 posit banks. In this particidar, there- 
 fore, to a great extent, his will prevailed. 
 In 1836, Congress refused to confine the 
 receipts for public lands to gold and 
 silver; but the President willed it, and 
 his will prevailed. In 1837, both houses 
 of Congress, by more than two thirds, 
 passed a bill for restoring the former 
 state of things by annulling the treasury 
 order; but tlie President willed, notwith- 
 standing, that the order should remain 
 in force, and his \n]l again prevailed. 
 I repeat the question, therefore, and 1 
 would put it earnestly to every inteUi 
 gent man, to every lover of our constitu- 
 tional liberty, are we under the dominion 
 of the law'? or has the effectual govern- 
 
440 
 
 RECEPTION AT NEW YORK 
 
 ment of the conDtry, at least in all that 
 regards the great interest of the cur- 
 rency, been in a single hand? 
 
 Gentlemen, I have done with the nar- 
 rative of events and measures. I have 
 done with the histoiy of these successive 
 steps, in the progress of executive power, 
 towards a complete control over the rev- 
 enue and the cm-rency. The result is 
 now all before us. These pretended re- 
 forms, these extraordinary exercises of 
 power from an extraordinarj- zeal for 
 tlie good of the people, what have they 
 brought us to? 
 
 In 1829, the currency was declared to 
 be nehlier sound nor uniform; a proposi- 
 tion, in my judgment, altogether at vari- 
 ance with the fact, because I do not be- 
 lieve there ever was a country of equal 
 extent, iu which paper formed any j^art 
 of the circulation, that possessed a cur- 
 rency so sound, so uniform, so conven- 
 ient, and so perfect in all respects, as the 
 currency of this country, at the moment 
 of the delivery of that message, in 1829. 
 
 But how is it now? AVhero has the 
 improvement brought it? AVhat has re- 
 form done? "What has the great cry for 
 hard money accomplished? Is the cur- 
 rency uniform now? Is money in Xew 
 Orleans now as good, or nearly so, as 
 money in Xew York? Are exchanges at 
 par, or only at the same low rates as in 
 1829 and other years? Every one here 
 knows that all ^e benefits of this ex- 
 periment are but injury and oppression; 
 all this reform, but aggravated distress. 
 
 And as to the soundness of the cur- 
 rency, how does that stand? Are the 
 causes of alarm less now than in 182!»V 
 Is there less bank paper in circulation? 
 Is there less fear of a general catastro- 
 phe? Is property more secure, or indus- 
 try more certain of its reward? We all 
 know, Gentlemen, tliat, dming all this 
 pretended warfare against all banks, 
 banks JKive vastly increa-sed. Millions 
 upon millions of bank paper have been 
 added to the circulation. Everywhere, 
 and nowliere so much as where the 
 present administration and its measures 
 have been most zealously supported, 
 banks have multiplied under State au- 
 
 thority, since the decree was made thai 
 the Bank of the United States should be 
 suffered to exj^ire. Look at Mississippi, 
 Missouri, Louisiana, Virginia, and other 
 States. Do we not see that banking 
 capital and bank paper are enormously 
 increasing? The opposition to banks, 
 therefore, so much professed, whether it 
 be real or whether it be but pretended, 
 has not restrained either their number 
 or their issues of paper. Both have 
 vastly increased. 
 
 And now a word or two. Gentlemen, 
 upon this hard-money scheme, and the 
 fancies and the delusions to which it has 
 given birth. Gentlemen, this is a sub- 
 ject of delicacy, and one which it is diffi- 
 cult to treat with sufficient caution, in a 
 popular and occasional address like this. 
 I profess to be a bullionist, in the usual 
 and accepted sense of that word. I am 
 for a solid specie basis for our circula- 
 tion, and for specie as a part of the cir- 
 culation, so far as it may be practicable 
 and convenient. I am for giving no 
 value to paper, merely as paper. I 
 abhor paper; that is to say, irredeema- 
 ble paper, paper that may not be con- 
 verted into gold or silver at the will of 
 the holder. But while I hold to all this, 
 I believe, also, that an exclusive gold 
 and silver circulation is an utter impos- 
 sibility in the present state of this coun- 
 trj' and of the world. We shall none of 
 us ever see it; and it is credulity and 
 folly, in my opinion, to act under any 
 such hope or expectation. The States 
 will make banks, and these will issue 
 paper; and the longer the government 
 of the United States neglects its dutv in 
 regard to measures for regulating the cur- 
 rency, the greater will be the amount of 
 bank paper overspreading the country. 
 Of this I entertain not a particle of doubt. 
 
 While 1 tlius hold to the absolute and 
 indispensable necessity of gold and sil- 
 ver, as the fouuilation of our circulation, 
 I yet tliink nothing more absurd and pre- 
 posterous, than unnatural and strained 
 efforts to imjwrt specie. There is but 
 so much specie in the world, and its 
 amount cannot be greatly or suddenly 
 increiised. Iiuleed, there are reasons 
 for supposing that its amount has re- 
 
RFXEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 441 
 
 cently diminished, by the quantity used 
 in manufactures, and by the diminished 
 products of the mines. The existing 
 amount of specie, however, must sup- 
 port the paper circuhitions, and tlie sys- 
 tems of currency, not of the United 
 States only, but of other nations also. 
 One of its great uses is to pass from 
 country to country, for the purpose of 
 settling occasional balances in commer- 
 cial transactions. It always finds its 
 way, naturally and easily, to places 
 where it is needed for these uses. But 
 to take extraordinary pains to bring it 
 where the course of trade does not bring 
 it, where the state of debt and credit 
 does not require it to be, and then to 
 endeavor, by unnecessary and injurious 
 regulations, treasury orders, accumula- 
 tions at the mint, and other contriv- 
 ances, there to retain it, is a course of 
 policy bordering, as it appears to me, on 
 political insanity. It is boasted that we 
 have seventy-five or eighty millions of 
 specie now in the country. But what 
 more senseless, what more absurd, than 
 this boast, if there is a balance against 
 us abroad, of which payment is desired 
 sooner than remittances of our own 
 products are likely to make that pay- 
 ment? "WTiat more miserable than to 
 boast of having that which is not ours, 
 which belongs to others, and which the 
 convenience of others, and our own con- 
 venience also, require that they should 
 possess? If Boston were in debt to 
 Xew York, would it be wise in Boston, 
 instead of paying its debt, to contrive 
 all possible means of obtaiuing specie 
 from the Xew Y''ork banks, and hoarding 
 it at home? And yet tliis, as I think, 
 would be precisely as sensible as the 
 course which the government of the 
 United States at present pursues. "We 
 have, beyond all doubt, a great amount 
 of specie in the country, but it does not 
 answer its accustomed end, it does not 
 perform its proper duty. It neither goes 
 abroad to settle balances against us, and 
 thereby quiet those who have demands 
 upon us ; nor is it so disposed of at home 
 as to sustain the circulation to the extent 
 which the circumstances of the times 
 '■eqiiiie. A great part of it is in the 
 
 Western banks, in the land offices, on 
 the roads through the wilderness, on the 
 passages over the Lakes, from the land 
 offices to the deposit banks, and from 
 tlie deposit banks back to the land of- 
 fices. Another portion is in the hands 
 of buyers and sellers of specie; of men 
 in the West, who sell laud-office nionej 
 to the new settlers for a high premium 
 Another portion, again, is kept in pri- 
 vate hands, to be used when circum- 
 stances shall tempt to the purchase of 
 lands. And, Gentlemen, I am inclined 
 to think, so loud has been the cry about 
 hard money, and so sweejiing the de- 
 nunciation of all paper, that private 
 holding, or hoarding, prevails to some 
 extent in different parts of the country. 
 These eighty millions of specie, there- 
 fore, really do us little good. We are 
 weaker in our circulation, I have no 
 doubt, our credit is feebler, money ia 
 scarcer with us, at this moment, than, 
 if twenty millions of this specie were 
 shipped to Eurojje, and general confi- 
 dence thereby restored. 
 
 Gentlemen, I will not say that some 
 degi'ee of pressure might not have come 
 upon us, if the treasury order had not 
 issued. I will not say that there has 
 not been over-trading, and over-produc- 
 tion, and a too great expansion of bank 
 circulation. This may all be so, and 
 the last-mentioned evil, it was easy to 
 foresee, was likely to happen when the 
 United States discontinued their own 
 bank. But what I do say is, that, act- 
 ing upon the state of things as it actu- 
 ally existed, and is now^ actually existing 
 the treasury order has been, and now i* 
 productive of great distress. It acti» 
 upon a state of things which gives ex- 
 traordinary force to its stroke, and ei« 
 traordinary point to its sting. It arrests 
 specie, when the free use and circulation 
 of specie are most important; it cripples 
 the banks, at a moment when the banks 
 more than ever need all their means. 
 It makes the merchant unable to remit, 
 when remittance is necessary for his own 
 credit, aud for the general adjustment 
 of commercial balances. I am not now 
 discussing the general question, whethc 
 prices must not come down, and adjust 
 
442 
 
 RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 themselves anev. to the amount of bul- 
 lion existing in Europe and America. 
 I am dealing only with the measures of 
 cur own government on the subject of 
 the currency, and I insist that these 
 measures have been most unfortunate, 
 and most ruinous in their etiects on the 
 ordinary means of our circulation at 
 home, and on our ability of remittance 
 abroad. 
 
 Their effects, too, on domestic ex- 
 changes, by deranging and misplacing 
 the specie which is in the country, are 
 most disastrous. Let him who has lent 
 an ear to all these promises of a more 
 uniform currency see how he can now 
 sell his draft on New Orleans or Mobile. 
 Let tlie Northern manufacturers and 
 mechanics, those who have sold the 
 products of their labor to the South, and 
 heretofore realized the prices witli little 
 loss of exchange, — let them try present 
 facilities. Let them see what reform of 
 the currency has done for them. Let 
 them inquiie whether, in this respect, 
 their condition is better or worse than it 
 was five or six years ago. 
 
 Gentlemen, 1 hold this disturbance of 
 the measure of value, and the means of 
 payment and exchange, this derange- 
 ment, and, if I may so say, this violation 
 of the currency, to be one of the most un- 
 pardonable of political faults. He who 
 tampers with the currency robs labor 
 of its bread. He panders, indeed, to 
 greedy capital, which is keen-sighted, 
 and may sliift for itself; but he beggars 
 labor, which is honest, unsuspecting, 
 and too busy with the present to calcu- 
 late for the future. The prosperity of 
 the working classes lives, moves, and 
 has its being in established credit, and 
 a steady medium of payment. All sud- 
 den changes destroy it. Honest indus- 
 try never comes in for any part of the 
 spoils in that scramble which takes 
 place when the currency of a country 
 is disordered. Did wild schemes and 
 projects ever benefit the industrious? 
 Did irredeemable bank paper ever enrich 
 the laborious? Did violent fluctuations 
 ever do good to him who depends on his 
 daily labor for his daily bread? Cer- 
 tainly never. All these tilings may 
 
 gratify greediness for sudden gain, oj 
 the rashness of daring speculation; bu 
 they can bring nothing but injury &nd 
 distress to the homes of patient industry 
 and honest labor. Who are they tha 
 profit by the present state of things? 
 They are not the many, but the few. 
 They are speculators, broker", dealers 
 in money, and lenders of money at ex- 
 orbitant interest. Small capitalists are 
 crushed, and, their means being dis- 
 persed, as usual, in various parts of the 
 countiT, and this miserable policy hav- 
 ing destroyed exchanges, they have no 
 longer either money or credit. And all 
 classes of labor partake, and must par- 
 take, in the same calamity. And what 
 consolation for all this is it, that the 
 public lands are paid for in specie? that, 
 whatever embarrassment and distress 
 pervade the country, the Western wil- 
 derness is thickly sprinkled over with 
 eagles and dollars? that gold goes weekly 
 from Milwaukie and Chicago to Detroit, 
 and back again from Detroit to ^lil- 
 waukie and Chicago, and performs simi- 
 lar feats of egress and regress, in many 
 other instances, in the Western States? 
 It is remarkable enough, that, with all 
 this sacrifice of general convenience, 
 with all this sky-rending clamor for gov- 
 ernment payments in specie, government, 
 after all, never gets a dollar. So far as 
 I know, the United States have not now 
 a single specie dollar in the world. If 
 they have, where is it? The gold and 
 silver collected at the land offices is sent 
 to the deposit banks; it is there placed 
 to the credit of the government, and 
 thereby becomes the property of the 
 bank. The whole revenue of the gov- 
 ernment, therefore, after all, consists in 
 mere bank credits ; that very sort of se- 
 curity which the friends of the adminis- 
 tration have so much denounced. 
 
 Remember, Gentlemen, in the midst 
 of this deafening din against all banks, 
 that, if it shall create such a panic as 
 shall shut up the banks, it will shut 
 up the treasury of the United States 
 also. 
 
 Gentlemen, I would not willingly be 
 a prophet of ill. I most devoutly wish 
 to see a better state of tilings; and J 
 
RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 443 
 
 believe the repeal of the treasury order 
 would tend very imidi to bring about 
 that better state of things. And I am 
 of opinion, that, sooner or later, the 
 order will be repealed. I think it must 
 be repealed. I think the East, West, 
 Korth, and South vi-ill demand its re- 
 peal. But, Gentlemen, I feel it my 
 duty to say, that, if I should be disap- 
 pointed in this expectation, I see no 
 immediate relief to the distresses of the 
 commuuity. I greatly fear, even, that 
 the wcrst is not yet.^ I look for severer 
 distresses; for extreme difficulties in 
 exchange, for far greater inconveniences 
 in remittance, and for a sudden fall in 
 prices. Our condition is one which is 
 not to be tampered with, and the repeal 
 of the treasury order, being something 
 ■which government can do, and which 
 will do good, the public voice is right in 
 demanding that repeal. It is true, if 
 repealed now, the relief will come late. 
 Nevertheless its repeal or abrogation is 
 a thing to be insisted on, and pm'sued, 
 till it shall be accomplished. This ex- 
 ecutive control over the currency, this 
 power of discriminating, by treasury 
 order, between one man's debt and an- 
 other man's debt, is a thing not to be 
 endured in a free country; and it should 
 be the constant, persisting demand of 
 all true Whigs, " Rescind the illegal 
 treasury order, restore the rule of the 
 law, place all branches of the revenue 
 on the same grounds, make men's rights 
 equal, and leave the government of the 
 country where the Constitution leaves 
 it, in the hands of the repi-esentatives of 
 the people in Congress." This point 
 should never be surrendered or compro- 
 mised. Whatever is established, let it 
 
 1 On the 10th of June following the delivery 
 of this speech, all the banks in the city of New 
 York, by common consent, suspended the pay- 
 ment of their notes in specie. On the next day, 
 the san)e step was taken by tlie banks of Bos- 
 Ion and the vicinity, and the example was fol- 
 lowed by all the banks south of New York, as 
 they received intelligence of the suspension of 
 specie payments in that city. On the 15th of 
 June, (just three months from the day this 
 speech was delivered,) President Van Buren 
 Issued his proclamation calling an extra ses- 
 sion of Congress for the first Monday of Sep- 
 tember 
 
 be equal, and let it be legal. Let men 
 know, to-day, what money may be re 
 quired of them to-morrow. Let the rule 
 be open and public, on the pages of the 
 statute-book, not a secret, in tlie execu- 
 tive breast. 
 
 Gentlemen, in the session which hag 
 now just closed, I have done my utmost 
 to effect a direct and immediate repeal 
 of the treasury order. 
 
 I have voted for a bill anticipating 
 the payment of the French and Neapol- 
 itan indemnities by an advance . from 
 the treasury. 
 
 I have voted with gi'eat satisfaction 
 for the restoration of duties on goods 
 destroyed in the great conflagration in 
 this city. 
 
 I have voted for a deposit with the 
 States of the surplus which may be in 
 the treasury at the end of the year. All 
 these measitres have failed ; and it is for 
 you, and for our fellow-citizens through- 
 out the country, to decide whether the 
 public interest would, or would not, hav9 
 been promoted by their success. 
 
 But I find, Gentlemen, that I am 
 committing an unpardonable trespass on 
 your indulgent patience. I will pursue 
 these remarks no further. And yet I 
 cannot persuade myself to take leave of 
 you without reminding you, with the 
 utmost deference and respect, of the im- 
 portant part assigned to you in the 
 political concerns of your country, and 
 of the great influence of your opinions, 
 your example, and your efforts upon the 
 general prosperity and happiness. 
 
 Whigs of New York! Patriotic citi- 
 zens of this great metropolis! Lovers 
 of constitutional liberty, bound by in- 
 terest and by affection to the institu- 
 tions of your country, Americans in 
 heart and in principle! — you are ready, 
 I am sure, to fulfil all the duties im- 
 posed upon you by your situation, and 
 demanded of you by your country. 
 You have a central position; your city 
 is the point from which intelligence em- 
 anates, and spreads in all directions over 
 the whole land. Every hour carries re- 
 ports of your sentiments and opin.-ons 
 to the verge of the Union. You car not 
 escape the responsibility which circuiu- 
 
411 
 
 RECEPTION AT NEW YORK. 
 
 stances have thrown upon you. You 
 must live and act, on a broad and con- 
 spicuous theatre, either for good or for 
 evil to your country. You cannot shrink 
 from your public duties; you cannot ob- 
 scure yourselves, nor bury your talent. 
 In the common welfare, in the common 
 prosperity, in the common glory of 
 Americans, you have a stake of value 
 not to be calculated. You have an in- 
 terest in the preservation of tlie Union, 
 of the Constitution, and of the true 
 principles of the government, which no 
 man can estimate. You act for your- 
 selves, and for the generations that are 
 to come after you; and those who ages 
 hence shall bear your names, and par- 
 take your blood, will feel, in their po- 
 litical and social condition, the conse- 
 quences of the manner in which you 
 discharge your political duties. 
 
 Having fulfilled, then, on your part 
 and on mine, though feebly and imper- 
 fectly on mine, the offices of kindness 
 and mutual regard required by this 
 occasion, shall we not use it to a higher 
 and nobler purpose? Shall we not, by 
 
 this friendly meeting, refresh our pa- 
 triotism, rekindle our love of consti- 
 tutional liberty, and strengthen our 
 resolutions of public duty? Shall we 
 not, in all honesty and sincerity, with 
 pure and disinterested love of country, 
 as Americans, looking back to the re- 
 nown of our ancestors, and looking for- 
 ward to the interests of our posterity, 
 here, to-night, pledge our mutual faith 
 to hold on to the last to our professed 
 principles, to the doctrines of true lib- 
 erty, and to the Constitution of the 
 country, let who will prove true, or who 
 will prove recreant? "Whigs of New 
 Y'ork! I meet you in advance, and give 
 you my pledge for my own performance 
 of these duties, without qualification 
 and without reserve. A\'hether in pub- 
 lic life or in private life, in the Capi- 
 tol or at home, I mean never to desert 
 them. I mean never to forget that I 
 have a country, to which I am bound by 
 a thousand ties ; and the stone which is 
 to lie on the ground that shall cover me, 
 shall not bear the name of a son un^^ate- 
 ful to his native land. 
 
SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 KEMARKS MADE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE lOra 
 OF JANUARY, 1833, UPON A RESOLUTION MOVED BY MR. CLAY AS A 
 SUBSTITUTE FOR THE RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MR. CALHOUN ON THE 
 SUBJECT OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 [On the 27th of December, 1837, a series 
 of resolutions was moved in the Senate by 
 Mr. Calhoun, on the subject of slavery. 
 The fifth of the series was expressed in the 
 following terms : — 
 
 "Resolved, That the intermeddling of 
 any State, or States, or their citizens, to 
 abolish slavery in this District, or any of 
 the Territories, on the ground, or under the 
 pretext, that it is immoral or sinful, or the 
 passage of any act or measure of Congress 
 with that view, would be a direct and dan- 
 gerous attack on the institutions of all the 
 slave-holding States." 
 
 These resolutions were taken up for dis- 
 cussion on several successive days. On the 
 10th of January, 1838, Mr. Clay' moved the 
 following resolution, as a substitute for 
 the tilth of Mr. Calhoun's series : — 
 
 "Resolved, That the interference, by 
 the citizens of any of the States, with the 
 view to the abolition of slavery in this Dis- 
 trict, is endangering the rights and security 
 of the people of the District ; and that any 
 act or measure of Congress, designed to 
 abolish slavery in this District, would be a 
 violation of the faith implied in tlie ces- 
 sions by the States of Virginia and Mary- 
 land, a just cause of alarm to the peoi)le of 
 the slave-holding States, and have a direct 
 and inevitable tendency to disturb and en- 
 danger the Union." 
 
 On the subject of this amendment, Mr. 
 Webster addressed the Senate as fol- 
 lows.] 
 
 Mr. President, — I cannot concur 
 in this resolution. I do not know any 
 matter of fact, or any ground of ar- 
 gument, on which this affirmation of 
 pligiited faith can be sustained. I see 
 nothing by which Congress has tied up 
 its hands, either directly or indirectly, 
 BO as to put its clear constitutional 
 
 power beyond the exercise of its own 
 discretion. I have carefully examined 
 the acts of cession by the States, the 
 act of Congress, the proceedings and 
 history of the times, and I find noth- 
 ing to lead me to doubt that it was the 
 intention of all parties to leave this, 
 like other subjects belonging to legisla- 
 tion for the ceded territory, entirely to 
 the discretion and wisdom of Congress. 
 The words of the Constitution are clear 
 and plain. None could be clearer or 
 plainer. Congress, by that instrument, 
 has power to exercise exclusive jurisdic- 
 tion over the ceded territory, in all cases 
 whatsoever. The acts of cession con- 
 tain no limitation, condition, or qualifi- 
 cation whatever, except that, out of 
 abundant caution, there is inserted a 
 proviso that nothing in the acts con 
 tained .shall be construed to vest in the 
 United States any right of property in 
 the soil, so as to affect the rights of 
 individuals therein, otherwise than a3 
 such individuals might themselves trans- 
 fer their right of soil to the United 
 States. The acts of cession declare, 
 that the tract of countiy " is for ever 
 ceded and relinquished to Congress and 
 to the government of the United States, 
 in full and absolute right and exclusive 
 jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons 
 residing or to reside therein, pursuant 
 to the tenor and effect of the eighth .sec- 
 tion of the first article of the Constitu* 
 tion of the United States." 
 
*46 
 
 b^AVEhV LS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 
 
 Now, that section, to which reference 
 is thus expressly made in these deeds 
 of cession, declares, that Congress shall 
 have power " to exercise exclusive legis- 
 lation, in all cases whatsoever, over such 
 district, not exceeding ten miles square, 
 as may, by cession of particular States 
 and the acceptance of Congress, become 
 the seat of government of the United 
 States." 
 
 Nothing, therefore, as it seems to me, 
 can be clearer, than that the States mak- 
 ing the cession expected Congress to 
 exercise over the District precisely that 
 ^Ktwer, and neither more nor less, which 
 the Constitution had conferred upon it. 
 I do not know how the provision, or the 
 intention, either of the Constitution in 
 granting the power, or of the States in 
 making the cession, could be expressed 
 in a manner more absolutely free from 
 all doubt or ambiguity. 
 
 I see, therefore, nothing in the act of 
 cession, and nothing in the Constitu- 
 tion, and nothing in the history of this 
 transaction, and nothing in any other 
 transaction, implying any limitation 
 upon the authority of Congress. 
 
 If the assertion contained in this 
 resolution be true, a very sti'ange re- 
 sult, as it seems to me, must foUow. 
 The resolution affirms that the faith of 
 Congress is pledged, indefinitely. It 
 makes no limitation of time or circum- 
 stance. If this be so, then it is an obli- 
 gation that binds us for ever, as much 
 a.s if it were one of the prohibitions of 
 the Constitution itself. And at all times 
 hereafter, even if, in the course of their 
 history, availing themselves of events, 
 or changing their views of policy, the 
 States theni.selves should make provis- 
 ion for the emancipation of their slaves, 
 the existing state of things could not be 
 changed, nevertheless, in this District. 
 It dues really seem to nie, that, if this 
 resolution, in its tenns, be true, though 
 slavery in every other part of the world 
 may be al>oli.shed, yet in the metrop- 
 olis of this great republic it is estab- 
 lished in perpetuity. This apj^ears to 
 me to be tlie result of the doctrine 
 of pligiiteil faitli, a.s stated in the reso- 
 Uition. 
 
 In reply to Mr. Buchanan, Air. Webster 
 
 said : — 
 
 The words of the resolution speak for 
 themselves. They require no comment. 
 They express an unlimited plighted 
 faith. The honorable member will so 
 see if he will look at those words. The 
 gentleman asks whether those who made 
 the cession could have expected that 
 Congress would ever exercise such a 
 power. To this I answer, that I see 
 no reason to doubt that the parties to 
 the cession were as willing to leave this 
 as to leave other powers to the discre- 
 tion of Congress. I see not the slight- 
 est evidence of any especial fear, or any 
 especial care or concern, on the part of 
 the ceding States, in regard to this par- 
 ticular part of the jurisdiction ceded to 
 Congress. And I think I can ask, on 
 the other side, a very important question 
 for the consideration of the gentleman 
 himself, and for that of the Senate and 
 the country; and that is, Would Con- 
 gress have accepted the cession with any 
 such restraint upon its constitutional 
 power, either expiess or understood to 
 be implied'/ I think not. Looking back 
 to the state of things then existing, and 
 especially to what Congress had so re- 
 cently done, when it accepted the ces- 
 sion of the Northwestern Territory, I 
 entertain no doubt whatever that Con- 
 gress would have refused the cession al- 
 together, if offered with any condition 
 or understanding that its constitutional 
 authority to exercise exclusive legisla- 
 tion over the District in all cases what- 
 soever should be abridged. 
 
 The Senate will observe that I am 
 speaking solely to the jx)int of plighted 
 faith. Upon other parts of the resolu- 
 tion, and upon many other things con- 
 nected with it, I have said nothing. I 
 only resist the imposition of new obli- 
 gations, or a new prohibition, not to be 
 found, as I think, either in tlie Consti- 
 tution or any act of Congress. I have 
 said nothing on the expediency of aboli- 
 tion, immediate or gradual, or the rea- 
 sons which ought to weigh with Con- 
 gress should that question be projKised. 
 I can, however, well conceive what 
 would, as I tliink, be a natural and 
 
SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUiflilA. 
 
 447 
 
 fair mode r<l reasoning on such an oc- 
 casion. 
 
 \Vhen it is said, for instance, by way 
 ot argument, that Congress, although it 
 have the power, ought not to take a lead 
 in the business of abolition, consider- 
 ing that the interest which the United 
 litalcs have in the whole subject is vastly 
 less than that which States have in it, I 
 can understand the propriety and per- 
 tinency of the observation. It is, as 
 far as it goes, a pertinent and appro- 
 pi iate argument, and I shall always be 
 ready to give it the full weight belong- 
 ing to it. "When it is argued that, in 
 a case so vital to the States, the States 
 themselves should be allowed to main- 
 tain tlieir own policy, and that the gov- 
 ernment of the United States ought not 
 to do any thing which shall, directly or 
 indirectly, sjiake or disturb that policy, 
 this is a line of argument which I can 
 understand, whatever weight I may be 
 disposed to give to it; for I have always 
 not only admitted, but insisted, that 
 slavery within the States is a subject 
 belonging absolutely and exclusively to 
 the States themselves. 
 
 But the present is not an attempt to 
 establish any such course of reasoning 
 as this. The attempt is to set up a 
 pledge of the public faith, to do the same 
 office that a constitutional prohibition in 
 terms would do; that is, to set up a di- 
 rect bar, precluding all exercise of the 
 disci-etion of Congress over the subject. 
 It has been often said, in this debate, 
 and I believe it is true, that a decided 
 majority of the Senate do believe that 
 Congress has a clear constitutional 
 power over slavery in this District. 
 But while this constitutional right is 
 admitted, it is at the same moment at- 
 tempted effectually to counteract, over- 
 throw, and do away with it, by the affir- 
 mation of plighted faith, as asserted in 
 the resolution before us. 
 
 Now, I have already said I know of 
 nothing to support this affirmation. 
 Neither in the acts of cession, nor in the 
 act of Congress accepting it, nor in any 
 other document, history, publication, or 
 transaction, do I know of a single fact 
 or suggestion supporting this proposi- 
 
 tion, or tending to support it. Nor has 
 any gentleman, so far as I know, pointed 
 out, or attempted to point out, any such 
 fact, document, transaction, or other 
 evidence. All is left to the general and 
 repeated statement, that such a condi 
 tion must have been intended by the 
 States. Of all this I see ao proof what- 
 ever. I see no evidence of any desire 
 on the part of the States thus to limit 
 the power of Congress, or thus to require 
 a pledge against its exercise. And, in- 
 deed, if this were made out, the inten- 
 tion of Congress, as well as that of the 
 States, must be inquired into. Nothing 
 short of a clear and manifest intention 
 of both parties, proved by proper evi- 
 dence, can amount to plighted faith. 
 The expectation or intent of one party, 
 founded on something not provided for 
 nor hinted at in the transaction itself, 
 cannot plight the faith of the other 
 party. 
 
 In short, I am altogether unable to 
 see any ground for supposing that either 
 party to the cession had any mental 
 reservation, any unexpressed expecta- 
 tion, or relied on any implied, but un- 
 mentioned and unsuggested pledge, 
 whatever. By the Constitution, if a 
 district should be ceded to it for the 
 seat of government. Congress was to 
 have a right, in express terms, to exer- 
 cise exclusive legislation, in all cases 
 whatsoever. The cession was made and 
 accepted in pursuance of this power. 
 Both parties knew well what they were 
 doing. Both parties knew that by the 
 cession the States surrendered all juris- 
 diction, and Congress acquired all juris- 
 diction; and this is the whole transac- 
 tion. 
 
 As to any provision in the acts of ces- 
 sion stipulating for the security of prop- 
 erty, there is none, excepting only what 
 I have already stated; the condition, 
 namely, that no right of individuals to 
 the soil should be construed to be trans- 
 ferred, but only the jurisdiction. But, 
 no doubt, all rights of property ought to 
 be duly respected by Congress, and all 
 other legislatures. 
 
 And since the subject of compensa- 
 tion to the o^^^lers of emancipated slaves 
 
448 
 
 SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 has been referred to, I take occasion to 
 Bay, that if Congress sliould think that 
 a wise, just, and politic legislation for 
 this District required it to make com- 
 pensation for slaves emancipated here, 
 it has tlie same constitutional author- 
 ity to make such compensation as to 
 make gi-ants for roads and bridges, 
 almshouses, penitentiaries, and other 
 similar objects, in the District. A 
 general and absolute power of legis- 
 lation carries with it all the necessai-y 
 and just incidents belonging to such 
 legislation. 
 
 Mr. Clay having made some remarks in 
 reply, Mr. Webster rejoined : — 
 
 The honorable member from Ken- 
 tucky asks the Senate to suppose the 
 opposite case; to suppose that the seat 
 of government had been fixed in a 
 free State, Pennsylvania, for exam- 
 ple; and that Congress had attempted 
 to establish slavery in a district over 
 which, as here, it had thus exclusive 
 legislation. He asks whether, in that 
 case, Congress could establish slavery in 
 such a place. This mode of changing 
 the question does not, I think, vary 
 the argument; and I answer, at once, 
 that, however unprobable or improper 
 such an act might be, yet, if the power 
 were imiversal, absolute, and without 
 
 restriction, it might unquestionably be 
 so exercised. No limitation being ex- 
 pressed or intimated in the grant itself, 
 or any other proceeding of the parties, 
 none could be implied. 
 
 And in the other cases, of forts, 
 arsenals, and dock-yards, if Congress 
 has exclusive and absolute legislative 
 power, it must, of course, have the 
 power, if it could be supposed to be 
 guilty of such folly, whether proposed 
 to be exercised in a district within a free 
 State, to establish slaverv', or in a dis- 
 trict in a slave State, to abolish or regu- 
 late it. If it be a district over which 
 Congi-ess has, as it has in this District, 
 unlimited power of legislation, it seems 
 to me that whatever would stay the exer- 
 cise of this power, in either case, must 
 be drawn from discretion, from reasons 
 of justice and true policy, from those 
 high considerations which ought to in- 
 fluence Congi-ess in questions of such 
 extreme delicacy and importance; and 
 to all these considerations I am willing, 
 and always shall be willing, I trust, to 
 give full weight. But I cannot, in con- 
 science, say that the power so cleaily 
 conferred on Congi-ess by the Constitu- 
 tion, as a power to be exercised, like 
 others, at its own discretion, is imme- 
 diately taken away again by an implied 
 faith that it shall not be exercised at all. 
 
THE CREDIT SYSTEM AND THE LABOR OF 
 THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 FROM THE SECOND SPEECH ON THE SUB-TREASURY, DELIVERED IN FHl 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 1338 
 
 Xow, Mr. President, what I under- 
 stand by the credit system is, that which 
 thus connects labor and capital, by giv- 
 inc; to labor the use of capital. In 
 other words, intelligence, good charac- 
 ter, and good morals bestow on those 
 who have not capital a power, a trust, 
 a confidence, which enables them to ob- 
 tain it. and to employ it usefully for 
 tlieniselves and others. These active 
 men of business build their ho]U's of suc- 
 cess on their attentiveness, their econ- 
 omy, and their integi-ity. A wider 
 theatre for useful activity is under their 
 feet, and around them, than was ever 
 open to the young and enterprising gen- 
 erations of men, on any other spot en- 
 lightened by the sun. Before them is 
 the ocean. Every thing in that direc- 
 tion invites them to efforts of enterprise 
 and industry in the pursuits of commerce 
 and the fisheries. Around them, on all 
 hands, are thriving and prosperous man- 
 ufactures, an improving agriculture, and 
 the daily presentation of new objects 
 of internal improvement; while behind 
 them is almost half a continent of the 
 richest land, at the cheapest prices, un- 
 der healthful climates, and washed by 
 the most magnificent rivers that on any 
 part of the globe pay their homage to 
 the sea. In the midst of all these glow- 
 ing and glorious prospects, they are 
 neither restrained by ignorance, nor 
 rmitten down by the penury of personal 
 circumstances. Tliey are not compelled 
 to contemplate, in hopelessness and de- 
 
 spair, all the advantages thus bestowed 
 on their condition by Providence. Cap- 
 ital they may have little or none, but 
 CREDIT supplies its place; not as the 
 refuge of the prodigal and the reckless ; 
 not as gratifying present wants with the 
 certainty of future absolute ruin ; but as 
 the genius of honorable trust and confi- 
 dence; as the blessing voluntarily offered 
 to good character and to good conduct* 
 as the beneficent agent, which assists 
 honesty and enterpi-ise in obtaining com- 
 fort and independence. 
 
 ^Ir. President, take away this credit, 
 and what remains? I do not ask what 
 remains to the few, but to the many? 
 Take away this system of credit, and 
 then tell me what is left for labor and 
 industry, but mere manual toil and 
 daily drudgery? If we adopt a system 
 that withilraws capital from active em- 
 ployment, do we not diminish the rate 
 of wages? If we curtail the general 
 business of society, does not every labor- 
 ing man find his condition grow daily 
 worse? In the politics of the day, Sir, 
 we hear much said about divorcing 
 the government from the banks; but 
 when we abolish credit, we shall di- 
 vorce labor from capital; and depend 
 upon it. Sir, when we divorce labor 
 from capital, capital is hoarded, and 
 labor starves. 
 
 The declaration so often quoted, that 
 "all who trade on borrowed capital 
 ought to break," is the most aristocratic 
 sentiment ever uttered iu this country 
 
 29 
 
450 
 
 THE CREDIT SYSTEM AND THE LABOR 
 
 It is a sentiment %Yhich, if carried out 
 by political arrangement, would con- 
 demn the great majority of mankind to 
 the perpetual condition of mere day- 
 laboreri. It tends to take away from 
 them all that solace and hope which 
 arise from i->ossessing something which 
 they can call their own. A man loves 
 his own ; it is fit and natural that he 
 should do so; and he will love his coun- 
 try and its institutions, if he have some 
 stake in that country, although it be but 
 a very small part of the general mass of 
 property. If it be but a cottage, an 
 acre, a garden, its possession raises him, 
 gives him self-respect, and strengthens 
 his attachment to his native land. It is 
 our happy condition, by the blessing of 
 Providence, that almost every man of 
 sound health, industrious habits, and 
 good morals, can ordinarily attain, at 
 least, to this degree of comfort and re- 
 spectability; and it is a result devoutly 
 to be wished, both for its individual and 
 its general consequences. 
 
 But even to this degree of acquisition 
 that credit of which I have already said 
 60 much is highly important, since its 
 general effect Ls to raise the price of 
 wages, and render industry productive. 
 There is no condition so low, if it be 
 attended with industry and economy, 
 that it is not benefited by credit, as any 
 one will find, if he will examine and 
 follow out its operations. 
 
 , • • • • 
 
 Sir, if there be any aristocrats in 
 Massachusetts, the people are all aristo- 
 crats ; because I do not believe there is 
 on earth, in a highly civilized society, a 
 greater equality in the condition of men 
 than exists there. If there be a man in 
 the State who maintains what is called 
 an e(iuiiiage, has servants in livery, or 
 drivL's four horses in his coacli, I am not 
 ucciuainted with him. On the other 
 hand, thtMe are few who are not able to 
 carry their wives and daughters to church 
 ill some decent convey;uice. It is no 
 matter of regret or sorrow to us that 
 few are very rich; but it is our pride 
 and glory that few are very j)Oor. It is 
 our still higher pride, and our justbo.ost, 
 as I lliink, that all her citizeus possess 
 
 means of intelligence and education ; 
 and that, of all her productions, she 
 reckons among the vei-y chiefest those 
 which spring from the culture of the 
 mind and the heart. 
 
 Mr. President, one of the most strik- 
 ing characteristics of this age is the 
 extraordinary progress which it has wit- 
 nessed in popular knowledge. A new 
 and powerful impulse has been acting 
 in the social system of late, producing 
 this effect in a most remarkable degree. 
 In morals, in politics, in art, in litera- 
 ture, there is a vast accession to the 
 number of readers and to the number 
 of proficients. The prfesent state of 
 popular knowledge is not the result of 
 a slow and uniform progress, proceeding 
 through a lapse of years, with the same 
 regular degree of motion. It is evi- 
 dently the result of some new causes, 
 brought into powerful action, and pro- 
 ducing their consequences rapidly and 
 strikingly. What, Sir, are these causes? 
 
 This is not an occasion. Sir, for dis- 
 cussing such a question at length ; allow 
 me to say, however, that the improved 
 state of popular knowledge is but the 
 necessary result of the improved con- 
 dition of the great mass of the people. 
 Knowledge is not one of our merely 
 physical wants. Life may be sustained 
 without it. But, in order to live, men 
 must be fed and clothed and sheltered ; 
 and in a state of things in which one's 
 whole labor can do no more than pro- 
 cure clothes, food, and shelter, he can 
 have no time nor means for mental 
 improvement. Knowledge, therefore, is 
 not attained, and cannot be attained, 
 till there is some degree of respite from 
 daily manual toil and never-ending 
 drudgery. Whenever a less degree of 
 labor will produce the absolute necessa- 
 ries of life, then there come leisure and 
 means both to teach and to learn. 
 
 If this great and wonderful extension 
 of popular knowledge be the result of an 
 improved condition, it may, in the next 
 place, well be asked. What are the causes 
 which have tluis suddenly produced that 
 great improvement? How is it that the 
 means of food, clothing, and shelter are 
 now fio much more cheaply and alum- 
 
OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 451 
 
 dandy procured than formerly? Sir, the 
 main cause I take to be the progress of 
 Kcieiitific art, or a new extension of the 
 application of science to art. This it is 
 which has so much distinguished the 
 last luilf-century in Europe and in 
 America, and its effects are everywhere 
 visible, and especially among us. ]\Ian 
 has found new allies and auxiliaiies in 
 the powers of nature and in the inven- 
 tions of mechanism. 
 
 The general doctrine of political econ- 
 omy is, that wealth consists in wiiatever 
 is useful or convenient to man, and that 
 labor is the producing cause of all this 
 wealth. This is very true. But, then, 
 what is labor? In the sense of political 
 writers, and in common language, it 
 means human industry; in a philosophi- 
 cal view, it may receive a much more 
 comprehensive meaning. It is not, in 
 that view, human toil only, the mere 
 action of thews and muscles; but it is 
 any active agency which, working upon 
 the materials with which the world is 
 supplied, brings forth products useful 
 or convenient to man. The materials 
 of wealth are in the earth, in the seas, 
 and in their natural and unaided pro- 
 ductions. Labor obtains these mate- 
 rials, works upon them, and fashions 
 them to human use. Now it has been 
 the object of scientific art, or of the 
 application of science to art, to increase 
 this active agency, to augment its power, 
 by creating millions of laborers in the 
 form of machines all but automatic, all 
 to be diligently employed and kept at 
 work by the force of natural powers. 
 To this end these natural powers, prin- 
 cipally those of steam and falling water, 
 are subsidized and taken into human em- 
 ployment. Spinning-machines, power- 
 looms, and all the mechanical devices, 
 acting, among other operatives, in the 
 factories and workshops, are but so 
 many laborers. They are usually de- 
 nominated labor-sayi"^ machines, but it 
 would be more just to call them labor- 
 doincj machines. They are made to be 
 active agents; to have motion, and to 
 produce effect; and though without in- 
 telligence, thej' are guided by laws of 
 science, which are exact and perfect, 
 
 and they produce results, therefore, ia 
 general, more accurate than the human 
 hand is capable of producing. When 
 we look upon one of these, we behold a 
 mute fellow-laborer, of immense power, 
 of mathematical exactness, and of ever- 
 during and unwearied effort. And 
 while he is thus a most skilful and pro- 
 ductive laborer, he is a non-consumer, 
 at least beyond the wants of his me- 
 chanical being. He is not clamorous 
 for food, raiment, or shelter, and makes 
 no demands for the expenses of educa- 
 tion. The eating and drinking, the read- 
 ing and writing, and the clothes-wearing 
 world, are benefited by the labors of 
 these co-operatives, in the same way as 
 if Providence had provided for their 
 service millions of beings, like oui'selves 
 in external appearance, able to labor 
 and to toil, and yet requiring little or 
 nothing for their own consumption or 
 subsistence; or rather, as if Providence 
 had created a race of giants, each of 
 whom, demanding no more for his sup- 
 port and consumption than a connnon 
 laborer, should yet be able to perform 
 the work of a hundred. 
 
 Now, Sir, turn back to the Massachu- 
 setts tables of production, and you will 
 see that it is these automatic allies and 
 co-operators, and these powers of nature, 
 thus employed and placed under human 
 direction, which have come, witli such 
 prodigious effect, to man's aid, in the 
 great business of procuring the means 
 of living, of comfort, and of wealth, and 
 which have so swollen the products of 
 her skilful industry. Look at these ta- 
 bles once more. Sir, and you will see the 
 effects of labor, united with and acting 
 upon capital. Look yet again, and you 
 will see that credit, mutual trust, prompt 
 and punctual dealings, and commercial 
 confidence, are all mixed up as indis- 
 pensable elements in the general sys- 
 tem. 
 
 I will ask you to look yet once more, 
 Sir, and you will perceive that general 
 competence, great equality in human 
 condition, a degree of popular knowl- 
 edge and intelligence nowhere surpassed, 
 if anywhere equalled, the prevalence of 
 good moral sentiment, and extraordi- 
 
452 
 
 THE CREDIT SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 nary general prosperity, are the result 
 of the whole. Sir, I have done with 
 Ma.ssachusetts. I do not praise the old 
 " Bay State " of the Revolution; I only 
 present her as she is. 
 
 Mr. Pre.sident, such is the state of 
 tilings actually existing in the country, 
 and of which I have now given you a 
 sample. And yet there are persons who 
 constantly clangor against this state of 
 things. They call it aristocracy. They 
 excite the poor to make war upon the 
 rich, while in truth they know not who 
 are either rich or poor. They complain 
 of oppression, speculation, and the per- 
 nicious influence of accumulated wealth. 
 They cry out loudly against all banks 
 and corporations, and all the means by 
 which small capitals become united, in 
 order to produce important and benefi- 
 cial results. They carry on a mad hos- 
 tility against all established institutions. 
 They would choke up the fountains of 
 industry, and diy all its streams. 
 
 In a country of unbounded liberty, 
 they clamor against oppression. In a 
 country of perfect equality, they would 
 move heaven and earth against privilege 
 and monopoly. In a country where prop- 
 
 erty is more equally divided than any- 
 where else, they rend the air with the 
 shouting of agrarian doctrines. In a 
 country where the wages of labor are 
 high beyond all parallel, and where lands 
 are cheap, and tlie means of living low, 
 they would teach the laborer that he is 
 but an oppressed slave. Sir, what can 
 such men want? What do tliey mean? 
 They can want nothing, Sir, but to en- 
 joy the fruits of other men 's labor. They 
 can mean nothing but disturbance and 
 disorder, the ditfusion of corrupt princi- 
 ples, and the destruction of the moral 
 sentiments and moral habits of society. 
 A licentiousness of feeling and of action 
 is sometimes produced by prosperity it- 
 self. iNIen cannot always resist the temp- 
 tation to which they are exposed by the 
 very abundance of the bounties of Prov- 
 idence, and the very happiness of their 
 own condition; as tlie steed, full of the 
 piisture, will sometimes throw himself 
 against its enclosures, break away from 
 its confinement, and, feeling now free 
 from needless restraint, betake himself 
 to the moors and barrens, where want, 
 erelong, bring-s him to his senses, and 
 starvation and death close hLs career. 
 
KEMARKS ON THE POLITICAL COURSE OF 
 MR. CALHOUN, IN 1838. 
 
 FROM THE SAME SPEECH. 
 
 Having had occasion, Mr. President, 
 to speak of nullification and the nulli- 
 fiers, I beg leave to say that I have not 
 done so for any purpose of reproach. 
 Certainly, Sir, I see no possible connec- 
 tion, myself, between their principles or 
 opinions, and the support of this meas- 
 ure.^ They, however, must speak for 
 themselves. They may have intrusted 
 the bearing of their standard, for aught 
 I know, to the hands of the honorable 
 member from South Carolina; and I 
 perceived last session what I perceive 
 now, that in his opinion there is a con- 
 nection between these projects of gov- 
 ernment and the doctrines of nullifica- 
 tion. I can only say. Sir, that it will 
 be marvellous to me, if that banner, 
 though it be said to be tattered and 
 torn, shall yet be lowered in obeisance, 
 and laid at the footstool of executive 
 power. To the sustaining of that power, 
 the passage of this bill is of the utmost 
 importance. The administration will 
 regard its success as being to them, what 
 Cromwell said the battle of Worcester 
 was to him, "a ci'owning mercy." 
 Whether gentlemen, who have distin- 
 guished themselves so much by their 
 extreme jealousy of this government, 
 shall now find it consistent with their 
 pr:nci2:)les to give their aid in eftecting 
 thi3 consummation, remains to be seen. 
 
 The next exposition of the honorable 
 gentleman's sentiments and opinions is 
 in his letter of the 3d of November. 
 
 This letter. Sir, is a curiosity. As a 
 1 The Sub-Treasury. 
 
 paper describing political operations, and 
 exhibiting political opinions, it is with- 
 out a parallel. Its phrase is altogether 
 military. It reads like a despatch, or a 
 bulletin from head-quarters. It is fidl 
 of attacks, assaults, and repulses. It 
 recounts movements and counter-move- 
 ments; speaks of occupying one posi- 
 tion, falling back upon another, and 
 advancing to a third; it has positions 
 to cover enemies, and positions to hold 
 allies in check. INIeantime, the celerity 
 of all these operations reminds one of 
 the rapidity of the military actions of 
 the king of Prussia, in the Seven Years' 
 war. Yesterday, he was in the South, 
 giving battle to the Austrian; to-day he 
 is in Saxony, or Silesia. Instantly he 
 is found to have traversed the Elector- 
 ate, and is facing the Russian and the 
 Swede on his northern frontier. If you 
 look for his place on the map, before 
 you find it he has quitted it. He is 
 always marching, flying, falling back, 
 wheeling, attacking, defending, surpris- 
 ing; fighting everywhere, and fighting 
 all the time. In one particular, how- 
 ever, the campaigns described in this 
 letter are conducted in a different man- 
 ner from those of the great Frederick. 
 I think we nowhere read, in the narra- 
 tive of Frederick's achievements, of his 
 taking a position to cover an enemy, 
 or a position to hold an ally in check. 
 These refinements in the science of tac- 
 tics and of war are of more recent dis- 
 covery. 
 
 Mr. President, public men must cer 
 
454 
 
 REMARKS ON THE POLITICAL 
 
 taiiily be allowed tc change their opin- 
 ions, and their associations, whenever 
 they see fit. No one doubts this. Men 
 may have g^owu wi-ser; they may have 
 attained to better and more correct views 
 of great public subjects. It would be 
 unfortimate, if there were any code which 
 should oblige men, in publ'c or private 
 life, to adhere to opinions once enter- 
 tained, in spite of experience and better 
 knowledge, and against their own con- 
 victions of their erroneous character. 
 Nevertheless, Sir, it must be acknowl- 
 edged, that what appears to be a sud- 
 den, as well as a great change, naturally 
 produces a shock. I confess that, for 
 one, I was shocked when the honorable 
 gentleman, at the last se.ssion, espoused 
 this bill of the administration. And 
 when I first read this letter of Novem- 
 ber, and, in the short space of a column 
 and a half, ran through such a succes- 
 sion of political movements, all termi- 
 nating in placing the honorable member 
 in the ranks of our opponents, and en- 
 titling him to take his seat, as he has 
 done, among them, if not at their head, 
 I confess I felt still greater surprise. 
 All this seemed a good deal too abrupt. 
 Sudden movements of the affections, 
 whether personal or political, are a little 
 out of nature. 
 
 Several years ago, Sir, some of the 
 wits of England wrote a mock play, in- 
 tended to ridicule the unnatural and 
 false feeling, the senlimentaliiij of a cer- 
 tain German school of literature. In 
 this play, two strangers are brought 
 together at an inn. ^^'hile they are 
 wanning themselves at the fire, and be- 
 fore their acquaintance is yet five min- 
 utes old, one springs up and exclaims to 
 the other, " A sudden tliought strikes 
 liie! Let us swear an eternal friend- 
 ship!" This affectionate offer was in- 
 stantly accepted, and the friendship duly 
 eworu, unchangeable and eternal ! Now, 
 Sir, how long this eternal friendship 
 lasted, or in what manner it ended, 
 those who wish to know may learn by 
 njfi-rring to the pla\'. 
 
 Hut it .seems to me, Sir, that the hon- 
 oral>le member has carried his political 
 Bentimentality a good deal higher than 
 
 the flight of the German school: for he 
 appears to have fallen suddenly in love, 
 not with strangers, but with opponents. 
 Here we all had been, Sir. contending 
 against the progress of executive power, 
 and more particularly, and most streim- 
 ously, against the projects and experi- 
 ments of the administration upon the 
 currency. The honorable member stood 
 among us, not only as an associate, but 
 as a leader. We thought we were mak- 
 ing some headway. The people ap' 
 peared to be coming to our support and 
 our assistance. The country had been 
 roused, every successive election weak- 
 ening the strength of the adversary, and 
 increasing our own. We were in this 
 career of success caiTied strongly for- 
 ward by the current of public opinion, 
 and only needed to hear the cheering 
 voice of the honorable member, 
 
 "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once 
 
 more! " 
 
 and we should have prostrated for ever 
 this anti-constitutional, anti-commercial, 
 anti-republican, and anti- American pol- 
 icy of the administration. But instead 
 of these encouraging and animating ac- 
 cents, behold! in the very crisis of our 
 affairs, on the verj' eve of victory, the 
 honorable member cries out to the ene- 
 my, — not to us, his allies, but to the 
 enemy: "Hollo! A sudden thought 
 i^trikes me! I abandon mv allies! Now 
 I think of it, they have always been my 
 oppressors! I abandon them, and now 
 let you and me swear an eternal friend- 
 ship!" Such a proposition, from suili 
 a quarter, Sir, was not likely to be long 
 withstood. The other party was a little 
 coy, but, upon the whole, nothing loath. 
 After proper hesitation, and a little de- 
 corous blushing, it owned the soft im- 
 peachment, admitted an equally sudden 
 .sympathetic impulse on its own side; 
 and, since few words are wanted where 
 hearts are already known, the honorable 
 gentleman takes his place among his 
 new friends amidst greetings and caress- 
 es, and is alreatly enjoying the sweets 
 of an eternal friendship. 
 
 In this letter, Mr. President, the 
 writer says, in substance, that he saw, 
 
COURSE OF MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 455 
 
 at the commencement of the last ses- 
 sion, that affairs had reached the point 
 when he and liis friends, according to 
 the course they should take, would reap 
 the full harvest of their long and arduous 
 struggle against the encroachments and 
 abuses of tlie general government, or 
 lose the fruits of all their labors. At 
 that time, he says. State interposition 
 (viz. Nullification) had overthrown the 
 protective tariff and the American sys- 
 tem, and put a stop to Congressional 
 usurpation; that he had previously been 
 united with the National Republicans; 
 but that, in joining such allies, he was 
 not insensible to the embarrassment of 
 his position ; that with them victory it- 
 self was dangerous, and that therefore 
 he had been waiting for events; that 
 now (that is to say, in September last) 
 the joint attacks of the allies had brought 
 down executive power; that the admin- 
 istration had become divested of power 
 and influence, and that it was now clear 
 that the combined attacks of the allied 
 forces would utterly overthrow and de- 
 molish it. All this he saw. But he 
 saw, too, as he says, that in that case 
 the victory would inure, not to him or 
 his cause, but to his allies and their 
 cause. I do not mean to saj' that he 
 spoke of personal victories, or alluded 
 to personal objects, at all. He spoke of 
 his cause. 
 
 He proceeds to say, then, that never 
 was there before, and never, probably, 
 will there be again, so fair an oppor- 
 tunity for himself and his friends to 
 cari-y out their own principles and policy, 
 and to reap the fruits of their long and 
 arduous struggle. These principles and 
 this policy. Sir, be it remembered, 
 he represents, all along, as identified 
 with the principles and policy of nullifi- 
 cation. And he makes use of this glo- 
 rious opportunity by refusing to join his 
 late allies in any further attack on those 
 in power, and rallying anew the old 
 State-rights party to hold in check 
 their old opponents, the National Re- 
 publican party. This, he says, would 
 enable him to prevent the complete as- 
 cendency of his allies, and to compel the 
 Southern division of the administration 
 
 party to occupy the gi-ound of which he 
 proposes to take possession, to wit, the 
 ground of the old State-rights party. 
 They will have, he says, no other alter- 
 native. 
 
 Mr. President, stripped of its military 
 language, what is the amount of all 
 this, but that, finding the administration 
 weak, and likely to be overthrown, if 
 the opposition continued with undimin- 
 ished force, he went over to it, he joined 
 it; intending to act, himself, upon nul- 
 lification principles, and to compel the 
 Southern members of the administra- 
 tion to meet him on those principles ? — 
 in otlier words, to make a nullification 
 administration, and to take such part 
 in it as should belong to him and his 
 friends. He confesses. Sir, that in thus 
 abandoning his allies, and taking a po- 
 sition to cover those in power, he per- 
 ceived a shock would be created which 
 would require some degi'ee of resolution 
 and firmness. In this he was ricfht. A 
 shock, Sir, has been created; yet there 
 he is. 
 
 This administration. Sir, is repre- 
 sented as succeeding to the last, by an 
 inheritance of principle. It professes 
 to tread in the footsteps of its illustrious 
 predecessor. It adopts, generally, the 
 sentiments, principles, and opinions of 
 General Jackson, proclamation and all; 
 and yet, though he be the very prince 
 of nullifiers, and but lately regarded as 
 the chiefest of sinners, it receives the 
 honorable gentleman with the utmost 
 complacency. To all appearance, the 
 delight is mutual ; they find him an able 
 leader, he finds them complying fol- 
 lowers. But, Sir, in all this movement 
 he understands himself. He means to 
 go ahead, and to take them along. Ha 
 is in the engine-car; he controls the 
 locomotive. His hand regulates the 
 steam, to increase or retard the speed 
 at his discretion. And as to the occu- 
 pants of the passenger-cars. Sir, they 
 are as happy a set of gentlemen as one 
 might desire to see of a summer's day. 
 They feel tliat they are in progress; they 
 hope they shall not be ran off the track ; 
 and when they reach the end of thei? 
 journey, they desire to be thankful 1 
 
456 
 
 REMARKS ON THE POLITICAL 
 
 Tlie arduous struggle is now all over. 
 Its ricliest fruits are all reaped; nullifi- 
 cation embraces the sub-treasuries, and 
 oppression and usurpation will be heard 
 of no more. 
 
 On the broad surface of the country, 
 Sir, there is a spot called " the Her- 
 mitage." In that residence is an occu- 
 pant very well known, and not a little 
 remarkable both in person and charac- 
 ter. Suppose, Sir, the occupant of the 
 Ilennitage were now to open that door, 
 ente- the Senate, walk forward, and 
 look over the cliamber to the seats on 
 the other side. Be not frightened, gen- 
 tlemen; it is but fancy's sketch. Sup- 
 pose he should thus come in among us. 
 Sir, and see into whose hands has fallen 
 the chief support of that administra- 
 tion, which was, in .so great a degi-ee, 
 appointed by himself, and which he 
 fondly relied on to maintain the prin- 
 ciples of his OKU. If gentlemen wore 
 now to see his steady military step, his 
 erect posture, his compressed lips, his 
 firmly-knitted brow, and his eye full of 
 fire, I cannot help thinking. Sir, they 
 would all feel .somewhat queer. There 
 would be, I imagine, not a little awk- 
 ward moving and shifting in their seats. 
 They would expect soon to hear the roar 
 of the lion, even if they did not feel his 
 paw. 
 
 Sir, the spirit of union is particularly 
 liable to temptation and seduction in 
 moments of peace and prospeiity. In 
 war, this spirit is strengthened by a 
 sense of common danger, and by a thou- 
 sand recollections of ancient efforts and 
 ancient glory in a common cause. But 
 in the calms of a long peace, and in the 
 absence of all apparent causes of alarm, 
 things near gain an ascendency over 
 things nnnote. Local interests and feel- 
 ings overshadow national .sentiments. 
 Our attention, our regard, and our at- 
 tachment are every moment solicited to 
 what touches us closest, and we feel less 
 and liss the attraction of a distant orb. 
 Such tendencies we are bound by true 
 patriotism and by our love of union to 
 j-esist. This is our duty; and the mo- 
 ment, in my judgment, h;vs arrived. 
 
 when that duty should be performed. 
 We hear, every day, sentiments and ar- 
 guments which would become a meeting 
 of envoys, employed by separate govern- 
 ments, more than they become the com- 
 mon legislature of a united country. 
 Constant appeals are made to local in- 
 terests, to geographical distinctions, and 
 to the policy and the pride of particular 
 States. It would sometimes appear as 
 if it were a settled purpose to convince 
 the people that our Union is nothing 
 but a jumble of different and discordant 
 interests, which must, erelong, be aU 
 re.solved into their original state of sep- 
 arate existence; as if, therefore, it was of 
 no great value wliile it should last, and 
 was not likely to last long. The process 
 of disintegration begins by urging as a 
 fact the existence of different interests. 
 Sir, is not the end to which all this 
 leads us obvious? Who does not see 
 that, if convictions of this kind take 
 possession of the public mind, our L^n- 
 ion can hereafter be nothing, while it 
 remains, but a connection without har- 
 mony; a bond without affection ; a thea- 
 tre for the angry contests of local feelings, 
 local objects, and local jealousies'? Even 
 while it continues to exist in name, it 
 may by these means become nothing but 
 the mere form of a united government. 
 My children, and the children of those 
 who sit around me, may meet, perhaps, 
 in this chamber, in the next generation; 
 but if tendencies now but too obvious be 
 not checked, thev will meet as stransrers 
 and aliens. They will feel no sense of 
 common interest or common country; 
 they will cherisii no common object of 
 patriotic love. If the same Saxon lan- 
 guage shall fall from their lips, it may 
 be the chief proof that they belong to 
 the same nation. Its vital principle ex- 
 hausted and gone, its power of doing 
 good terminated, the Union itself, be- 
 come productive only of strife and con- 
 tention, must ultimately fall, dishonored 
 and unlamented. 
 
 The honorable member from Carolina 
 himself habitually indulges in charges 
 of usurpation and oppression against ti)e 
 government of his country. He daily 
 denounces its imporUint measures, in tij^ 
 
COURSE OF MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 457 
 
 language in which our Revohitionary 
 father.s spoke of the oppressions of the 
 mother country. Not merely against 
 executive usurpation, either real or sup- 
 posed, does he utter tliese sentiments, 
 but against laws of Congress, laws passed 
 by large majorities, laws sanctioned for 
 a course of years by the people. These 
 laws he proclaims, every hour, to be but 
 a series of acts of oppression. lie speaks 
 of them as if it were an admitted fact, 
 that such is their true character. This 
 is the language he utters, these are the 
 sentiments he expresses, to the rising 
 generation around him. Are tliey sen- 
 timents and language which are likely 
 to inspire our children with the love of 
 union, to enlaige their patriotism, or to 
 teach them, and to make them feel, that 
 their destiny has made them common 
 citizens of one great and glorious repul)- 
 lic? A principal object in his late polit- 
 ical movements, the gentleman himself 
 tells us, was to unite the entire South; 
 and against whom, or against what, 
 does he wish to unite the entire South? 
 Is not this the very essence of local feel- 
 ing and local regard? Is it not the ac- 
 knowledgment of a wish and object to 
 create political strength by uniting polit- 
 ical opinions geographically? While the 
 srentleman thus wishes to unite the en- 
 tire South, I pray to know, Sir, if he ex- 
 pects me to turn toward the polar star, 
 and, acting on the same principle, to 
 utter a cry of Rally ! to the whole North? 
 Heaven forbid! To the day of my death, 
 neither he nor others shall hear such a 
 cry from me. 
 
 Finally, the honorable member de- 
 clares that he shall now march off, un- 
 der the banner of State rights! March 
 off from whom? March off from what? 
 ^Ve have been contending for great prin- 
 ciples. "We have been struggling to 
 maintain the liberty and to restore the 
 prosperity of the country; we have made 
 tlie.se struggles here, in the national 
 councils, with the old flag, the true 
 American flag, the Eagle, and the Stars 
 and Stripes, waving over the chamber 
 ill which we sit. He now tells us, how- 
 
 ever, that he marches off under the State- 
 rights banner! 
 
 Let him go. I remain. I am where 
 T ever have been, and ever mean to be. 
 Here, standing on the platform of the 
 general Constitution, a platform broad 
 enough and firm enough to upliold every 
 interest of the whole country, I shall 
 still be found. Intrusted with .some part 
 in the administration of that Constitu- 
 tion, I intend to act in its spirit, and in 
 the spirit of those who framed it. Yes, 
 Sir, I would act as if our fathers, who 
 formed it for us and who bequeathed it 
 to us, were looking on me; as if I could 
 see their venerable forms bending down 
 to behold us from the abodes above. I 
 would act, too, as if the eye of posterity 
 
 was gazmcf on me. 
 
 Standing thus, as in the full gaze of 
 our ancestors and our posterity, hav- 
 insT received this inheritance from the 
 former, to be transmitted to the latter, 
 and feeling that, if I am born for any 
 good, in my day and generation, it is 
 for tlie good of the whole country, no 
 local policy or local feeling, no tempo- 
 rary impulse, shall induce me to yield 
 my foothold on the Constitution of the 
 Union. I move off under no banner not 
 known to the whole American people, 
 and to their Constitution and laws. No, 
 Su-; these walls, these columns, 
 
 "shallfly 
 From their firm base as soon as L" 
 
 I came into public life, Sir, in the 
 service of the United States. On that 
 broad altar, my earliest, and all my pub- 
 lic vows, have been made. I propose 
 to serve no other master. So far as de- 
 pends on any agency of mine, they shall 
 continue united States; united in inter- 
 est and in affection; united in every 
 thing in regard to whicli the Con.stitu- 
 tion has decreed their union ; united in 
 war, for the common defence, the com- 
 mon renown, and the common glory: 
 and united, compacted, knit firmly to- 
 gether in peace, for the common pros- 
 perity and happiness of ourselves and 
 our children. 
 
REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 k SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THP 
 22d of march, 1838, IN ANSWER TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 f()y Thursday, the 22(1 of March, Mr. 
 Calhoun si)okc at length in answer to Mr. 
 Wehster's speech of the 12th of ^larch. 
 
 When he had concluded, ^Ir. Webster 
 immediately rose, and addressed the Sen- 
 ate as follows.] 
 
 Mr. President, — T came rather late 
 to the Senate this morning, and, hap- 
 pening to meet a friend on the Avenue, 
 I was admonished to hasten my steps, 
 as " tlie war was to be carried into 
 Africa," and I was expected to be anni- 
 liilated. I lost no time in following the 
 advice, .Sir, since it would be awkward 
 for one to be anniliilated without know- 
 ing any thing about it. 
 
 Well, Sir, the war has been carried 
 into Africa. The honorable member 
 has made an expedition into regions as 
 remote fmni the subject of this debate 
 as tiie orb of Jupiter from that of our 
 earth. He' has spoken of the tariff, of 
 slavery, and of the late war. Of all tliis 
 I do not complain. On the contrary, if 
 it be his pleasure to allude to all or any 
 of tliese topics, for any purpo.se what- 
 ever, I am ready at all times to hear him. 
 
 Sir, this carrying the war into Africa, 
 which lias become so common a phra.se 
 among us, is, indeed, imitating a great 
 example; but it is an example which is 
 not always followed with success. In 
 the first ] lace, every man, though he be 
 a man of talent and genius, is not a 
 Scipio; and in the next place, as I rec- 
 ollect this part of Roman and Cartha- 
 ginian history, — the gentleman may be 
 
 more accurate, but, as I recollect it, 
 when Scipio resolved upon carrying the 
 war into Africa, Hannibal was not at 
 home. Now, Sir, I am very little like 
 Hannibal, but lam at home; and when 
 Scipio Africanus South-Caroliniensis 
 brings the war into my territories, I 
 shall not leave their defence to Asdru- 
 bal, nor Syphax, nor anybody else. I 
 meet him on the shore, at his landing, 
 and propose but one contest. 
 
 " Concurritur; horse 
 Momento cita mors venit, aiit victoria iieta." 
 
 ^Ir. Pre-sident, I had made up my 
 mind that, if the honorable gentleman 
 should confine himself to a reply in the 
 ordinary way, I would not say anothei 
 syllable. But he has not done so. He 
 lias gone off into topics quite remote 
 from all connection witli revenue, com- 
 merce, finance, or sub-treasuries, and 
 invites to a discussion which, however 
 uninteresting to the public at the pres- 
 ent moment, is too personal to be de- 
 clined by me. 
 
 He says. Sir. that I undertook tc com- 
 pare my i^olitical character and conduct 
 with his. Far from it. I attempted no 
 such thing. I compared the gentle- 
 man's political opinions at different 
 times with one another, and expressed 
 decided opposition to those which he 
 now holds. And 1 did, certainly, ad- 
 vert to the general tone and drift of the 
 gentleman's sentiments and expressions 
 for somn years past, in their bear ing on 
 
REPLY TO JIR. CALHOUN. 
 
 459 
 
 llie Union, -with such remarks as I 
 thouglit they deserved; but 1 instituted 
 no comparison between him and myself. 
 He may institute one if lie pleases, and 
 wlien lie pleases. Seeking nothing of 
 this kind, I avoid nothing. Let it be 
 remembered, that the gentleman began 
 the debate, by attempting to exhibit a 
 contrast between the present opinions 
 and conduct of my friends and myself, 
 and our recent opinions and conduct. 
 Here is the first charge of inconsist- 
 ency; let the public judge whether 
 he has made it good. He says, Sir, 
 that on several questions I have taken 
 different sides, at different times; let 
 him show it. If he shows any change 
 of opinion, I shall be called on to give 
 a reason, and to account for it. I leave 
 it to the country to say whether, as yet, 
 he has shown any such thing. 
 
 But, Sir, before attempting that, he 
 has something else to say. He had 
 prepared, it seems, to draw comparisons 
 himself. He had intended to say some- 
 tliing, if time had allowed, upon our 
 respective opinions and conduct in re- 
 gard to the war. If time had allowed ! 
 Sir, time does allow, time must al- 
 low. A general remark of that kind 
 ought not to be, cannot be, left to pro- 
 duce its effect, when that effect is ob- 
 viously intended to be unfavorable. 
 Why did the gentleman allude to my 
 votes or my opinions respecting the war 
 at all, unless he had something to say? 
 Does he wish to leave an undefined im- 
 pression that something was done, or 
 something said, by me, not now capable 
 of defence or justification? something 
 not reconcilable with true patriotism? 
 He means that, or nothing. And now. 
 Sir, let him briug the matter forth; let 
 him take the responsibility of the ac- 
 cusation ; let him state his facts. I am 
 here to answer; I am here, this day, to 
 answer. Xow is the time, and now the 
 hour. I think we read. Sir, that one of 
 the good spirits would not bring against 
 the Arch-enemy of mankind a railing 
 accusation ; and what is railing but gen- 
 eral reproach, an imputation without 
 fact, time, or circumstance? Sir, I call 
 for particulars. The gentleman knows 
 
 my whole conduct well ; indeed, the 
 journals show it all, from the moment I 
 came into Congress till the peace. If T 
 have done, then. Sir, any thing unpatri 
 otic, any thing which, as far as love to 
 country goes, will not bear comparison 
 with his or any man's conduct, let it 
 now be stated. Give me the fact, the 
 time, the manner. He speaks of the 
 war; that which w'e call the late war, 
 though it is now twenty-five years since 
 it terminated. He would leave an im- 
 pression that I opposed it. How? I 
 was not in Congress when war was de- 
 clared, nor in public life anywhere. I 
 was pursuing my profession, keeping 
 company with judges and jurors, and 
 plaintiffs and defendants. If I had 
 been in Congress, and had enjoyed the 
 benefit of hearing the honorable gentle- 
 man's speeches, for aught I can say, 1 
 might have concurred with him. But 
 I was not in public life. I never had 
 been, for a single hour; and was in no 
 situation, therefore, to oppose or to sup- 
 port the declaration of war. I am 
 speaking to the fact, Sir; and if the 
 gentleman has any fact, let us know it. 
 Well, Sir, I came into Congress dur- 
 ing the war. I found it waged, and 
 raging. And what did I do here to op- 
 pose it? Look to the journals. Let the 
 honorable gentleman tax his memory. 
 Bring up any thing, if there be any 
 thing to bring up, not showing error of 
 opinion, but showing want of loyalty or 
 fidelity to the country. I did not agree 
 to all that was proposed, nor did the 
 honorable member. I did not approve 
 of every measure, nor did he. The war 
 had been preceded by the restrictive sj's- 
 tera and the embargo. As a private in- 
 dividual, I certainly did not think well 
 of these measures. It appeared to me 
 that the embargo annoyed ourselves as 
 much as our enemies, while it destroyed 
 the business and cramped the .spirits 
 of the people. In this opinion I may 
 have been right or wrong, but the gen- 
 tleman was himself of the same opinion. 
 He told us the other day, as a proof of 
 his independence of party on great ques- 
 tions, that he differed with his friends 
 on the subject of the embargo. He wa.'* 
 
4G0 
 
 REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 decidedly and unalterably opposed to it. 
 It furnishes in hi.s judgment, therefore, 
 no imputation either on my patriotism, 
 or on the soundness of my political 
 opinions, that I was opposed to it also. 
 I mean opposed in opinion; for I was 
 not in Congress, and had nothing to do 
 with the act creating the embargo. And 
 U.S to op[iosition to measures for carry- 
 ing on the war, after I came into Con- 
 gress, I again say, let the gentleman 
 specify; let him lay his finger on any 
 thing calling for an answer, and he shall 
 have an an.swer. . 
 
 Mr. President, you were yourself in 
 the lIou.-;e during a considerable part of 
 this time. The honorable gentleman 
 may make a witness of you. He may 
 make a witness of anybody else. He 
 may be his own witness. Give us but 
 some fact, some charge, something ca- 
 pable in itself either of being proved or 
 disproved. Prove any thing, state any 
 thing, not consistent with honorable and 
 patriotic conduct, and I am ready to an- 
 swer it. Sir, I am glad this subject has 
 been alluded to in a manner which jus- 
 tifies me in taking public notice of it; 
 because I am well aware that, for ten 
 years past, infinite pains has been taken 
 to find something, in the range of these 
 topics, which might create prejudice 
 against me in the countiy. The jour- 
 nals have all been pored over, and the 
 rei>orts ransacked, and scraps of para- 
 graphs and half-sentences have been col- 
 lected, fraudulently put together, and 
 then made to flare out as if there had 
 been some discovery. But all this failed. 
 The next resort was to supposed corre- 
 spondence. My letters were sought for, 
 to learn if, in the confidence of private 
 friend.-<hip, I had ever said any thing 
 which an enemy could iiKike use of. 
 With this view, the vicinity of my for- 
 mer residence has been searched, as with 
 a lighted candle. New Hampshire lias 
 been cxplmed, from the mouth of the 
 Merrimack to the White Hill.>;. In one 
 instance a gentleman had left tlie State, 
 pone five hundred miles off, and died. 
 His papers were examined; a letter was 
 found, and I have understood it w;is 
 brought to Washington; a conclave was 
 
 held to consider it, and the re.sult was, 
 that, if there was nothing else against 
 ^Ir. Webster, the matter had better be 
 let alone. Sir, I hope to make every- 
 body of that opinion who brings against 
 me a charge of want of patriotism. Er- 
 rors of opinion can be found, doubtless, 
 on many subjects; but as conduct flows 
 from the feelings which animate the 
 heart, I know that no act of my life has 
 had its origin in the want of ardent love 
 of country. 
 
 Sir, when I came to Congress, I found 
 the honorable gentleman a leading mem- 
 ber of the House of Representatives. 
 Well, Sir, in what did we differ? One 
 of the first measures of magnitude, after 
 I came here, was ^Ir. Dallas's ^ proposi- 
 tion for a bank. It was a war measure. 
 It was urged as being absolutely neces- 
 sary to enable government to carry on 
 the war. Government wanted revenue; 
 such a bank, it was hoped, would furnish 
 it; and on that account it was most 
 warmly pressed and urged on Congress. 
 You remember all this, Mr. President. 
 You remember how much some persons 
 supposed the success of the war and the 
 salvation of the country depended on 
 carrying that measure. Yet the honor- 
 able member from South Carolina op- 
 posed this bill. He now takes to himself 
 a good deal of merit, none too much, but 
 still a good deal of merit, for having de- 
 feated it. Well, Sir, I agreed with him. 
 It w'as a mere paper bank; a machine 
 for fabricating irredeemable paper. It 
 was a new form for paper money; and 
 instead of benefiting the country, I 
 thought it would plunge it deeper and 
 deeper in difficulty. I made a speech 
 on the subject; it has often been quotfd. 
 There it is; let whoever pleases read and 
 examine it. I am not proud of it for 
 any ability it exhibits; on the other 
 hand, I am not ashamed of it for the 
 spirit which it manifests. But, Sir, I 
 say again that the gentleman himself 
 took the lead against this measure, this 
 darling measure of the administration. 
 I followed him; if I was seduced into 
 enor, or into unjustifiable opposition 
 there sits my seducer. 
 
 - The Secretary of the Treasuiy. 
 
REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 461 
 
 What, Sir, were other leading seiiti- 
 niPiits or leading measures of that day? 
 On what otlu-r subjects did men differ? 
 The gentleman has adverted to one, and 
 that a most important one; I mean the 
 navy. He says, and says truly, that at 
 the commencement of the war the navy 
 was unpopular. It was unpopular with 
 his friends, who then controlled the 
 politics of tlie country. But he says he 
 differed with his friends; in this respect 
 he resisted party influence and party 
 connection, and was the friend and ad- 
 vocate of the navy. Sir, I commend 
 him for it. He showed his wisdom. 
 That gallant little navy soon fought 
 itself into favor, and showed that no 
 man who had placed reliance on it had 
 been disappointed. 
 
 Well, Sir, in all this I was exactly of 
 the opinion of the honorable gentleman. 
 Sir, I do not know when my opinion 
 of the impoitance of a naval force to the 
 United States had its origin. I can give 
 no date to my present sentiments on this 
 subject, because I never entertained dif- 
 ferent sentiments. I remember, Sir, that 
 immediately after coming into my pro- 
 fession, at a period when the navy was 
 most unpopular, when it was called by 
 all sorts of hard names and designated 
 by many coarse epithets, on one of those 
 occasions on which young men address 
 their neighbors, I ventured to put forth 
 a boy's hand in defence of the navy. I 
 insisted on its importance, its adai:)tation 
 to our circumstances and to our national 
 character, and its indispensable neces- 
 sity, if we intended to maintain and ex- 
 tend our commerce. These opinions and 
 sentiments I brought into Congress; and 
 the first time in which I presumed to 
 speak on the topics of the day, I at- 
 teir.pted to urge on the House a greater 
 attention to the naval service. There 
 were divers modes of prosecuting the 
 war. On these modes, or on the degree 
 of attention and expense which should 
 be bestowed on each, different men held 
 different opinions. 1 confess I looked 
 with most hope to the results of naval 
 warfare, and therefore I invoked gov- 
 ernment to invigorate and strengthen 
 that arm of the national defence. I 
 
 invoked it to seek its enemy upon the 
 seas, to go where every auspicious indi- 
 cation pointed, and where the whole 
 heart and soul of the country would go 
 with it. 
 
 Sir, we were at war with the greatest 
 maritime power on earth. England had 
 gained an ascendency on the seas over 
 all the combined powers of Europe. 
 She had been at war twenty years. 
 She had tried her fortunes on the Con- 
 tinent, but generally with no success. 
 At one time the whole Continent had 
 been closed against her. A long line of 
 armed exterior, an unbroken hostile ar- 
 ray, frowned upon her from the Gulf of 
 Archangel, round the promontory of 
 Spain and Portugal, to the extreme point 
 of Italy. There was not a poit which an 
 English ship could enter. Everywhere 
 on the land the genius of her great 
 enemy had triumphed. He had de- 
 feated armies, crushed coalitions, and 
 overturned thrones; but, like the fabled 
 giant, he was unconquerable only while 
 he touched the land. On the ocean he 
 was powerless. That field of fame was 
 his adversary's, and her meteor flag was 
 streaming in triumph over its whole ex- 
 tent. 
 
 To her maritime ascendency England 
 owed every thing, and we were now at 
 war with her. One of the most charm- 
 ing of her poets had said of her, — 
 
 " Her march is o'er the mountain waves, 
 Her home is on the deep." 
 
 Now, Sir, since we were at war with 
 her, I was for intercepting this mai-ch; 
 I was for calling upon her, and paying 
 our respects to her, at home ; I was for 
 giving her to know that we, too, had a 
 right of way over the seas, and tliat our 
 marine officers and our sailors were not 
 entire strangers on the bosom of the 
 deep. I was for doing something more 
 with our navy than keeping it on our 
 own shores, for the protection of our 
 coasts and harbors; I was for giving 
 play to its gallant and burning spirit; 
 for allowing it to go forth upon the seas, 
 and to encounter, on an open and an 
 equal field, whatever the proudest or the 
 bravest of the enemy could bring agains* 
 
462 
 
 REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 it. I knew the character of its officers 
 and the spirit of its seamen ; and I knew 
 that, in their hands, tbougli the flag of 
 the counti-y might go down to the bot- 
 tuni, yet, while defended by them, that 
 It could never be diiliouored or dis- 
 giaced. 
 
 Sin;e she was our enemy, and a mo.st 
 powerful enemy, I was for touching lier, 
 if we could, in the very apple of her eye; 
 for reaching the highest feather in her 
 cap; for clutching at the very brightest 
 jewel '11 her crown. There seemed to 
 me to be a peculiar propriety in all this, 
 as the war was undertaken for the re- 
 dress of maritime injuries alone. It 
 •was a war declared for free trade and 
 sailors' rights. The ocean, therefore, 
 was the proper theatre for deciding this 
 controveisy with our enemy, and on that 
 theatre it was my ardent wish that our 
 own power should be concentrated to 
 the utmost. 
 
 So much. Sir, for the war, and for my 
 conduct and opinions as connected with 
 it. And, as I do not mean to recur to 
 this subject often, nor ever, unless in- 
 dispensably necessary, I repeat the de- 
 mand for any charge, any accusation, 
 any allegation whatever, that throws me 
 behind the honorable gentleman, or be- 
 hind any other man, in honor, in fidel- 
 ity, in devoted love to that country in 
 which I was born, which has honored 
 me, and which I serve. I, who seldom 
 deal in defiance, now, here, in my place, 
 boldly defy the honorable member to put 
 his insinuation in the form of a charge, 
 and to support that charge by any proof 
 whatever. 
 
 The gentleman has adverted to the 
 8ul>j<ct of slavery. On this subject, he 
 says, I have not proved myself a friend 
 to the South. Why, Sir, the only proof 
 is, that I (lid not vote for his resolu- 
 tions. 
 
 Sir, this is a very grave matter; it is 
 a subject very exciting and inflammable. 
 I take, of course, all the responsibility 
 lielnnging to my opinions; but I desire 
 th«'se opinions to be understood, and 
 fairly stated. If I am to be regarded as 
 an enemy to the South, because I could 
 not supjiort the gentleman's resolutions, 
 
 be it so. I cannot purchase favor from 
 any quarter, by the sacrifice of clear and 
 conscientious convictions. The princi- 
 pal resolution declared that Congress 
 had plighted its faitti not to interfere 
 either with slavery or the slave trade 
 in the District of Columbia. 
 
 Now, Sir, this is quite a new idea. I 
 never heard it advanced until this ses- 
 sion. I have heard gentlemen contend 
 that no such power was in the Constitu- 
 tion; but the notion, that, though the 
 Constitution contained the power, yet 
 Congress had plighted its faith not to 
 exercise such a power, is an entire nov- 
 elty, so far as I know. I must say. Sir, 
 it appeared io me little else than an at- 
 tempt to put a prohibition into the Con- 
 stitution, because there was none there 
 already. For this supposed plighting of 
 the public faith, or the faith of Con- 
 gress, I saw no ground, either in the his- 
 tory of the government, or in any one 
 fact, or in any argument. I therefore 
 could not vote for the proposition. 
 
 Sir, it is now several years since I took 
 care to make my opinion known, that 
 this government has, con,stitutionally, 
 nothing to do with slavery, as it exists 
 in the States. That opinion is entirely 
 unchanged. I stand steadily by the 
 resolution of the House of Representa- 
 tives, adopted, after much consideration, 
 at the commencement of the govern- 
 ment, which was, that Congress has no 
 authority to interfere in the emancipa- 
 tion of slaves, or in the treatment of 
 them, within any of the States; it re- 
 maining with the several States alone to 
 provide any regulations therein, which 
 humanity and true policy may require. 
 This, in my opinion, is the Constitution 
 and the law. I feel bound by it [ 
 have quoted the resolution often. It ex- 
 presses the judgment of men of all parts 
 of the country, deliberately and cuolly 
 formed; and it expresses my judgment, 
 and I shall adhere to it. But this has 
 nothing to do with the other constitu- 
 tional question; that is to say, the mere 
 constitutional question whether Con- 
 gi-ess has tlie power to regulate slavery 
 and the slave trade in the District of 
 Columbia. 
 
UErLY TO iMli. CALIIUUN. 
 
 463 
 
 On such a qiiestioii, Sir, when I am 
 asked what the Constitution is, or 
 whether any power granted by it 
 has been coniproniised away, or, in- 
 deed, could be compromised away, I 
 must express my honest opinion, and 
 always shall express it, if I say any 
 thing, notwithstanding it may not meet 
 concurrence eitlier in the South, or the 
 North, or the East, or the West. I can- 
 not express by my vote what I do not 
 believe. The gentleman has chosen to 
 bring that subject into this debate, with 
 which it has no concern; but he may 
 make the most of it, if he thinks he can 
 produce unfavorable impressions against 
 me at the South from my negative to his 
 fifth resolution. As to the rest of them, 
 they were commonplaces, generally, or 
 abstractions; in regard to which, one 
 may well feel himself not called on to 
 vote at all. 
 
 And now, Sir, in regard to the tariff. 
 That is a long chapter, but I am quite 
 ready to go over it with the honorable 
 member. 
 
 lie charges me with inconsistency. 
 That may depend on deciding what in- 
 consistency is, in respect to such sub- 
 jects, and how^ it is to be proved. I will 
 state the facts, for I have them in my 
 mind somewhat more fully than the hon- 
 orable member has himself presented 
 them. Let us begin at the beginning. 
 In 1816 I voted against the tariff law 
 which then jiassed. In 1824 I again 
 voted against the tariff law which was 
 then proposed, and which passed. A 
 majority of New England votes, in 1824, 
 were against the tariff system. The bill 
 received but one vote from Massachu- 
 setts; but it passed. The policy was 
 established. New England acquiesced 
 in it; conformed her business and pur- 
 suits to it; embarked her capital, and 
 employed her labor, in manufactures; 
 and I certainly admit that, from that 
 time, I have felt bound to support inter- 
 ests thus called into being, and into im- 
 portance, by the settled policy of the 
 government. I have stated this often 
 here, and often elsewhere. The ground 
 is defensible, and I maintain it. 
 
 As to the resolutions adopted in Bos- 
 
 ton in 1820, and which resolutions he 
 has caused to be read, and which he says 
 he presumes I prepared, I have no rec- 
 ollection of having drawn the resolu- 
 tions, and do not believe I did. But T 
 was at the meeting, and addressed the 
 meeting, and what I said on that occa- 
 sion was produced here, and read in the 
 Senate, years ago. 
 
 The resolutions, Sir, were opposed to 
 the commencing of a high tariff policy. 
 I was ojiposed to it, and spoke against 
 it; the city of Boston was opposed to it; 
 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was 
 opposed to it. llemember, Sir, that this 
 was in 1820. This opposition contin- 
 ued till 1824. The votes all show this 
 But in 1824 the question was decided; 
 the government entered upon the policy; 
 it invited men to embark their projierty 
 and their means of living in it. Indi- 
 viduals thus encouraged have done this 
 to a great extent; and therefore I say, 
 so long as the manufactures shall need 
 reasonable and just protection from gov- 
 ernment, I shall be disposed to give it 
 to them. What is there, Sir, in all 
 this, for the gentleman to complain of ? 
 Would he have us always oppose the 
 policy adopted by the country on a great 
 question? Would he have minorities 
 never submit to the will of majorities? 
 
 I remember to have said. Sir, at the 
 meeting in Faneuil Hall, that protection 
 appeared to be regarded as incidental to 
 revenue, and that the incident could not 
 be carried fairly above the principal ; in 
 other words, that duties ought not to be 
 laid for the mere object of protection. 
 1 believe that proposition to be sub- 
 stantially correct. I believe that, if the 
 power of protection be inferred only 
 from the revenue power, the protection 
 could only be incidental. 
 
 But I have said in this place before, 
 and I repeat it now, that ]Mr. ^Madison's 
 publication after that period, and his 
 declaration that the Convention did in- 
 tend to grant the power of protection 
 under the commercial clause, placed the 
 subject in a new and a clear light. I 
 will add. Sir, that a paper drawn up 
 apparently w-ith the sanction of Dr. 
 Franklin, and read to a circle of fiiend? 
 
464 
 
 REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 at his house, on the eve of the assem- 
 bling of the Convention, respecting the 
 powers which the proposed new govern- 
 ment ought to possess, shows jilainly 
 that, in regulating commerce, it was ex- 
 pected that Congress would adopt a 
 course which should protect the manu- 
 factures of the Xorth. He certainly 
 went into the Convention himself under 
 that conviction. 
 
 A\'eU, Sir, and now what does the gen- 
 tleman make out against me in relation 
 to the tarilf? What laurels does he 
 gather in this part of Africa? I op- 
 posed the policy of the tariff, until it 
 had become the settled and established 
 policy of the country. I have never 
 questioned the constitutional power of 
 Congress to grant protection, except so 
 far as the remark made in Faneuil Hall 
 goes, which remark respects only the 
 length to which protection might prop- 
 erly be carried, so far as the power is 
 derived from the authority to lay duties 
 on imports. But the policy being estab- 
 lished, and a great part of the counti-y 
 having placed vast interests at stake in 
 it, I have not disturbed it; on the con- 
 traiy, I have insisted that it ouglit not 
 to be disturbed. If there be inconsist- 
 ency in all this, the gentleman is at lib- 
 erty to blazon it forth; let him see what 
 he can make of it. 
 
 Here, Sir, T cease to speak of myself; 
 and respectfully ask pardon of the Sen- 
 ate for having so long detained it upon 
 any tiling so unimportant as what re- 
 lates merely to my own public conduct 
 and opinions. 
 
 Sir, the honorable member is pleased 
 to suppose that our spleen is excited, 
 because he has interfered to snatch from 
 us a victory over the administration. If 
 he means by this any jjersonal disap- 
 pointment, I shall not think it worth 
 while to make a remark upon it. If he 
 means a disappointment at his quitting 
 us while we were endeavoring to arrest 
 the present policy of tlie administration, 
 why tlien I admit. Sir, that I, for one, 
 felt that disappointment deeply. It is 
 the policy of tlie administration, its 
 principles, ajid its mea,sures, which I 
 oppose. It is not persons, but things; 
 
 not men, but measures. I do wish most 
 fei-vently to put an end to this anti- 
 commercial policy ; and if the overthrow 
 of the policy shall be followed by the 
 political defeat of its autliors, why, Sir, 
 it is a result which I shall endeavor to 
 meet with equanimity. 
 
 Sir, as to the honorable member's 
 wresting the victory from us, or as to his 
 ability to sustain the administration in 
 this policy, there may be some doubt 
 about tliat. I trust the citadel will yet 
 be stormed, and carried, by tlie force of 
 public opinion, and that no Hector will 
 be able to defend its walls. 
 
 But now. Sir, I must advert to a 
 declaration of the honorable member, 
 which, I confess, did surprise me. The 
 honorable member says, that, personally, 
 he and myself have been on friendly 
 terms, but that we always differed on 
 great constitutional questions. Sir, this 
 is astounding. And yet I was partly 
 prepared for it; for I sat here the other 
 day, and held my breath, wliile the hon- 
 orable gentleman declared, and repeat- 
 ed, that he had always belonged to the 
 State-rights party. And he means, by 
 wliat he has declared to-day, that he has 
 always given to tlie Constitution a con- 
 struction more limited, better guarded, 
 less favorable to the extension of the 
 powers of this government, than that 
 which I have given to it. He has always 
 interpreted it according to the strict doc- 
 trines of the school of State rights! Sir, 
 if the honorable member ever belonged, 
 until very lately, to the State-rights 
 party, the connection was very much 
 like a secret marriage. And never was 
 secret better kept. Not only were tlie 
 espousals not acknowledged, but all 
 suspicion was avoided. There was no 
 known familiarity, or even kindness, 
 between them. On the contrary, they 
 acted like parties who were not at all 
 fond of each other's company. 
 
 Sir, is there a man in my hearing, 
 among all the gentlemen now surround- 
 ing us, many of whom, of both houses, 
 have been here many years, and know 
 the gentleman and myself perfectly, — 
 is there one who ever heard, suppc-^ed, 
 or dreamed that the honorable member 
 
KEPLY TO Mil. CALHOUN. 
 
 46o 
 
 belonged to the State-rights party before 
 the year 1S25? Can any such connec- 
 tion be proved upon him, can he prove it 
 upon himself, before that time? 
 
 Sir, I will show you, before I resume 
 my seat, tliat it was not until after the 
 gentleman took his seat in the cliair 
 which you now occupy, that any public 
 manifestation, or intimation, was ever 
 given by him of his having embraced 
 th? peculiar doctrines of the State-rights 
 party. Ihe truth is. Sir, the honorable 
 gentleman had acted a very important 
 and useful part during the war. But 
 the war terminated. Toward the end 
 of the session of 1814-15, we received 
 the news of peace. This closed the 
 Thirteenth Congi-ess. In the fall of 
 1815, the Fourteenth Congress assem- 
 bled. It was full of ability, and the 
 honorable gentleman stood high among 
 its distinguished members. He re- 
 mained in the House, Sir, through the 
 whole of that Congress; and now, Sir, 
 it is easy to show that, during those two 
 years, the honorable gentleman took a 
 decided lead in all those great measures 
 which he has since so often denounced 
 as unconstitutional and oppressive, the 
 bank, the tariff, and internal improve- 
 ments. The war being terminated, the 
 gentleman's mind turned itself toward 
 internal administration and improve- 
 ment. He surveyed the whole country, 
 contemplated its resources, saw what it 
 was capable of becoming, and held a 
 political faith not so nan"ow and con- 
 tracted as to restrain him from useful 
 and efficient action. He was, therefore, 
 at once a full length ahead of all others 
 in measures which were national, and 
 •which required a broad and liberal con- 
 struction of the Constitution. This is 
 historic truth. Of his agency in the 
 bank, and other measures connected with 
 llie currency, I have already spoken, and 
 I do not understand him to deny any 
 thing I have said, in that particular. 
 Indeed, I have said nothing capable of 
 denial. 
 
 Now allow me a few words upon the 
 tariff. The tariff of 1816 was distinctly 
 a South Carolina measure. Look at the 
 votes, and you will see it. It was a tariff 
 
 for the benefit of South Carolina inter- 
 ests, and carried through Congress by 
 South Carolina votes and South Carolina 
 influence. Even the ininimiim, Sir, the so- 
 much-reproached, the abominable mini- 
 mum, that subject of angry indignation 
 and wrathful rhetoric, is of Southera 
 origin, and has a South Carolina parent* 
 age.^ 
 
 Sir, the contest on that occasion was 
 chiefly between the cotton-growers at 
 home, and the importers of cotton fab- 
 rics from India. These India fabrics 
 were made from the cotton of that coun- 
 try. The people of this country were 
 using cotton fabrics not made of Ameri- 
 can cotton, and, so far, they were di- 
 minishing the demand for such cotton. 
 The importation of India cottons was 
 then very large, and this bill was de- 
 signed to put an end to it, and, with the 
 help of the minimum, it did put an end 
 to it. The cotton manufactures of the 
 North were then in their infancy. They 
 had some friends in Congress, but, if I 
 recollect, tne majority of Massachusetts 
 members and of New England members 
 were against this cotton tariff of 1816 
 I remember well, that the main debate 
 was between the importers of India cot- 
 tons, in the North, and the cotton-grow- 
 ers of the South. The gentleman can- 
 not deny the truth of this, or any part 
 of it. Boston opposed this tariff, and 
 Salem opposed it, warmly and vigor- 
 ously. But the honorable member sup- 
 ported it, and the law passed. And 
 now be it always remembered. Sir, that 
 that act passed on the professed gi-ound 
 of protection; that it had in it the min- 
 imum principle, and that the honorable 
 member, and other leading gentlemen 
 from his own State, supported it, voted 
 for it, and carried it through Congress. 
 
 And now, Sir, we come to the doc- 
 trine of internal improvement, that 
 other usurpation, that other oppression, 
 which has come so near to justifying 
 violent disruption of the government, 
 and scattering the fragments of the Un- 
 ion to the four winds. Have the gen* 
 tleman's State-rights opinions always 
 kept him aloof from such unhallowed 
 infringements of the Constitution? He 
 
 30 
 
46G 
 
 REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 says he always differed -with me on con- 
 stirutional questions. How was it in 
 this most important particular? lias he 
 here stood on the ramparts, brandi-shing 
 his glittering sword against assailants, 
 and holdiuij out a banner of defiance? 
 Sir, it is an indisputable truth, that he 
 is himself the man, the ipse that first 
 brought forward in Congress a scheme 
 of general internal improvement, at the 
 expense and under the authority of this 
 govenmient. He, Sir, is the very man, 
 the ipsLiaimus ipse, who considerately, 
 and on a settled system, began these un- 
 constitutional measures, if thoy be un- 
 constitutional. And now for the proof. 
 
 The act incorporating the Bank of the 
 United States was passed in April, ISKJ. 
 For the privileges of the charter, the 
 proprietors of the baiok were to pay to 
 government a bonus, as it was called, of 
 one million five hundred thousand dol- 
 lars, in certain instalments. Govern- 
 ment also took seven millions in the 
 stock of the bank. Early in the next 
 session of Congress, that is, in Decem- 
 ber, 1816, the lionorable member moved, 
 in the House of Representatives, that a 
 committee be appointed to consider the 
 propriety of setting apart this bonus, and 
 also the dividends on the stock belong:- 
 ing to the United States, as a permanent 
 fund for internal improvement. The 
 committee was appointed, and the hon- 
 orable member was made its chairman. 
 He thus originated the plan, and took 
 the lead in its execution. Shortly after- 
 wards, he reported a bill carrying out 
 the objects for which the committee had 
 been appointed. Tliis bill provided that 
 tlie dividends on the seven millions of 
 bank stock belonging to government, 
 and also the whole of the bonus, should 
 be permanently pledged as a fund for 
 constructing roads and canals; and that 
 this fund should be subject to such spe- 
 cific appropriations as Congress might 
 subsequently make. 
 
 This was the biU; and this was the 
 first project ever brought forward in 
 Congi-ess for a system of internal im- 
 provements. The bill goes the whole 
 doi-trine at a single jump. The Cum- 
 berland Koad. it is true, was already 
 
 in progress; and for that the gentleman 
 had also voted. But there were, and 
 are now, peculiarities about that partic- 
 ular expenditure which sometimes satr- 
 isfy scrupulous consciences ; but this bUl 
 of the gentleman's, without equivoca- 
 tion or saving clause, without if, or and, 
 or but, occupied the whole ground at 
 once, and announced internal improve- 
 ment as one of the objects of this gov- 
 ernment, on a gjand and systematic 
 plan. The bill, Sir, seemed indeed too 
 strong. It was thought by persons not 
 esteemed extremely jealous of State 
 rights to e^-ince too little regard to the 
 will of the States. Several gentlemen 
 opposed the measure in that shape, on 
 that account; and among them Colonel 
 Pickering, then one of the Representa- 
 tives from Massachusetts. Even Timo- 
 thy Pickering could not quite sanction, 
 or concur in, the honorable gentleman's 
 doctrines to their full extent, although 
 he favored the measure in its general 
 character. He therefore prepared an 
 amendment, as a substitute; and his 
 substitute provided for two very impor- 
 tant things not embraced in the original 
 biU: — 
 
 First, that the proportion of the fund 
 to be expended in each State, respec- 
 tively, should be in proportion to the 
 number of its inhabitants. 
 
 Second, that the money should be ap- 
 plied in constructing such roads, canals, 
 and so forth, in the several States, as 
 Congress might direct, with the assent 
 of the State. 
 
 This, Sir, was Timothy Pickering's 
 amendment to the gentleman's bill. 
 And now. Sir, how did the honorable 
 gentleman, who has always belonged to 
 the State-rights party, — how did he 
 treat this amendment, or this substitute;? 
 Which way do you think his State-rights 
 doctrine led him? ^\Tiy, Sir, I will tell 
 you. He immediately rose, and moved 
 to strike out the words " with the assen: 
 of the State " .' Here is tlie journal un- 
 der my hand, Sir; and here is the gen- 
 tleman's motion. And certaijily, Sir, it 
 wiU be admitted that this motion was 
 not of a nature to intimate that he was 
 wedded to State ri<rhts. But the words 
 
REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 467 
 
 were not struck out. The motion did 
 not prevail. Mr. Pickering's substitute 
 was adopted, and the bill passed the 
 House in that foim. 
 
 In committee of the whole on this 
 bill, Sir, the honorable member made a 
 very able speech both on tlie policy of 
 internal improvements and the power 
 of Congress over the subject. These 
 points were fully argued by him. He 
 spoke of the importance of the system, 
 the vast good it would produce, and its 
 favorable effect on the union of the 
 States. " Let us, then," said he, " bind 
 the republic together with a perfect sys- 
 tem of roads and canals. Let us con- 
 quer space. It is thus the most distant 
 parts of the republic will be brought 
 •within a few days' travel of the centre; 
 it is thus that a citizen of the AVest will 
 read the news of Boston stUl moist from 
 the press." 
 
 But on the power of Congress to make 
 internal improvements, ay, Sir, on the 
 power of Congress, hear him! What 
 were then his rules of construction and 
 interpretation? How did he at that 
 time read and understand the Constitu- 
 tion? "\ATiy, Sir, he said that " he was 
 no advocate for refined arguments on 
 the Constitution. The instrument was 
 not intended as a thesis for the logician 
 to exercise his ingenuity on. It ought 
 to be construed with plain good-sense." 
 This is all very just, I think, Sir; and 
 be said much more in the same strain. 
 He quoted many instances of laws passed, 
 as he contended, on similar principles, 
 and then added, that "he introduced 
 these instances to prove the uniform 
 sense of Congress and of the country 
 (for they had not been objected to) as to 
 our powers; and surely," said he, " they 
 furnish better evidence of the true inter- 
 pretation of the Constitution than the 
 most refined and subtile argimients." 
 
 Here you see, ^Mr. President, how 
 little original I am. You have heard 
 me again and again contending in my 
 place here for the stability of that which 
 has been long settled; you have heard 
 me, till I dare say you have been tired, 
 insisting that the sense of Congi-ess, so 
 often expressed, and the sense of the 
 
 country, so fully shown and so firmly 
 established, ought to be regarded aa 
 having decided finally certain constitu- 
 tional questions. You see now. Sir, what 
 authority I have for this mode of argu- 
 ment. But while the scholar is learning, 
 the teacher renounces. Will he ap])ly 
 liis old doctrine now — I sincerely wish 
 he would — to the question of the bank, 
 to the question of the receiving of bank- 
 notes by government, to tlie power of 
 Congress over the paper currency? Will 
 he admit that these questions ought to 
 be regarded as decided by the settled 
 sense of Congress and of the country? 
 O, no ! Far otherwise. From these 
 rules of judgment, and from the influ- 
 ence of all considerations of this practi- 
 cal nature, the honorable member now 
 takes these questions with him into the 
 upper heights of metaphysics, into the 
 regions of those refinements and subtile 
 arguments which he rejected with so 
 much decision in 1817, as appears by 
 this speech. He quits his old ground of 
 common-sense, experience, and the gen- 
 eral understanding of the country, for a 
 flight among theories and ethereal ab- 
 stractions. 
 
 And now. Sir, let me ask, when did 
 the honorable member relinquigh these 
 early opinions and principles of his ? 
 When did he make kno'svn his adhe- 
 sion to the doctrines of the State-rights 
 party? We have been speaking of 
 transactions in 1816 and 1817. What 
 the gentleman's opinions then were, we 
 have seen. When did he announce him- 
 self a State-rights man? I have already 
 said, Sir, that nobody knew of his claim- 
 ing that character untU after the com- 
 mencement of 1825; and I have said so, 
 because I have before me an address of 
 his to his neighbors at Abbeville, in May 
 of that year, in which he recounts, very 
 properly, the principal incidents in his 
 career as a member of Congress, and as 
 head of a department; and in which he 
 says that, as a member of Congi-ess, he 
 had given his zealous efforts in favor of 
 a restoration of specie ciuTency, of a due 
 protection of those m^iuufactures wliich 
 had taken root during ihe war, and, 
 finally, of a system for connecting the 
 
168 
 
 REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 various parts of the country by a judi- 
 cious system of internal improvement. 
 Ue adds, that it afterwards became his 
 duty, as a member of the administra- 
 tion, to aid in sustaining against the 
 boldest assaults those very measures 
 which, as a member of Congress, he 
 had contributed to establish. 
 
 And now, Sir, since the honorable 
 gentleman says he has diifered -nith me 
 on constitutional questions, -will he be 
 pleased to say what constitutional opin- 
 ion I have ever avowed for which I have 
 not his express authority? Is it on the 
 bank power? the tariff power? the power 
 of internal improvement? I have shown 
 his votes, his speeches, and his conduct, 
 on all these subjects, up to the time when 
 General Jackson became a candidate for 
 the Presidency. From tliat time, Sir, I 
 know we have differed; but if there was 
 any difference before that time, I call 
 upon him to point it out, to declare what 
 was the occasion, what the question, and 
 what the difference. And if before that 
 period, Sir, by any speech, any vote, 
 any public proceeding, or by any mode 
 of announcement whatever, he gave the 
 world to know that he belonged to the 
 State-rights party, I hope he will now 
 be kind enough to produce it, or to refer 
 to it, or to tell us where we may look 
 for it. 
 
 Sir. I will pursue this topic no farther. 
 I would not have pursued it so far, I 
 would not have entered upon it at all, 
 had it not been for the astonishment I 
 felt, mingled, I confess, with something 
 of warmer feeling, when the honorable 
 gentleman declared that he had always 
 differed with me on constitutional ques- 
 tions. Sir, the honorable member read 
 a quotation or two from a speech of 
 mine in 1810, on the currency or bank 
 question. With what intent, or to what 
 end? "What inconsistency does he show? 
 Speaking of the legal currency of the 
 covmtry, that is, the coin, I then said it 
 was in a good state. "Was not that true? 
 I was speaking of the legal currency; of 
 that which tlie law made a tender. And 
 how is that inconsistent with any thing 
 said by me now, or ever said by me? I 
 declared then, he says, that the fram- 
 
 ers of this government were hard-money 
 men. Certainly they were. But are 
 not tlie friends of a convertible paper 
 hard-money men, in every practical and 
 sensible meaning of the term? Did I, 
 in that speech, or any other, insist on 
 excluding all convertible paper from the 
 uses of society? Most assuredly I did 
 not. I never quite so far lost my wits, 
 I think. There is but a single sentence 
 in that speech which I should qualify if 
 I were to deliver it again, and that the 
 honorable member has not noticed. It 
 is a paragraph respecting the power of 
 Congress over the circulation of State 
 banks, which might perhaps need ex- 
 planation or correction. Understanding 
 it as applicable to the case then before 
 Congress, aU the rest is perfectly ac- 
 cordant with my present opinions. It 
 is well known that I never doubted the 
 power of Congress to create a bank ; that 
 I was always in favor of a bank, con- 
 stituted on proper principles; that I 
 voted for the bank bill of 1815; and 
 that I opposed that of 1816 only on ac- 
 count of one or two of its provisions, 
 which I and others hoped to be able to 
 strike out. I am a hard-money man, ^ 
 and always have been, and always shall 
 be. But I know the great use of such - 
 bank paper as is convertible into hard \ 
 money on demand ; which may be called 
 specie paper, and which is equivalent to 
 specie in value, and much more con- 
 venient and useful for common pur- 
 poses. On the other hand, I abhor all 
 irredeemable paper; all old-fashioned 
 paper money; all deceptive promises; 
 every thing, indeed, in the shape of 
 paper issued for circulation, whether by 
 government or individuals, which cannot 
 be turned into gold and silver at the will 
 of the holder. 
 
 But, Sir, I have insisted that govern- 
 ment is boimd to protect and regulate 
 the means of commerce, to see tliat there 
 is a sound currency for the use of the 
 people. The honorable gentleman a.sks, 
 What then is the limit? Must Congress 
 also furnish all means of commerce? 
 Must it furnish weights and scales and 
 steelyards? ^lost midoubtedly. Sir, it 
 must regulate weights and measures, 
 
REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN. 
 
 469 
 
 and it does so But the answer to the 
 general question is very obvious. Gov- 
 ernment must furnish all that wliich 
 none but government can furnish. Gov- 
 ernment must do that for individuals 
 which individuals cannot do for them- 
 selves. That is the very end of govern- 
 ment. ^^'hy else have we a government? 
 Can individuals make a currency? Can 
 individuals regulate money? The dis- 
 tinction is as broad and plain as the 
 Pennsylvania xVvenue. No man can 
 mistake it, or weU blmider out of it. 
 The gentleman asks if government must 
 furnish for the people ships, and boats, 
 and wagons. Certainly not. The gen- 
 tleman here only recites the President's 
 message of September. These things, 
 and all such things, the people can fur- 
 nish for themselves; but they cannot 
 make a currency; they cannot, indi- 
 vidually, decide what shall be the money 
 of the comitry. That, everybody knows, 
 is one of the prerogatives, and one of the 
 duties, of government; and a duty which 
 I think we are most unwisely and im- 
 properly neglecting. We may as well 
 leave the people to make war and to 
 make peace, each man for himself, as 
 to leave to individuals the regulation of 
 commerce and currency. 
 
 !Mr. President, there are other remarks 
 of the gentleman of which I might take 
 notice. But should I do so, I could only 
 repeat what I have already said, either 
 now or heretofore. I shall, therefore, 
 not now allude to them. My principal 
 purpose in what I have said has been to 
 defend myself; that was my first object; 
 and next, as the honorable member has 
 attempted to take to himself the char- 
 acter of a strict constructionist, and a 
 State-rights man, and on that basis to 
 show a difference, not favorable to me, 
 between his constitutional opinions and 
 my own, heretofore, it has been my in- 
 tention to show that the power to create 
 a bank, the power to regulate the cur- 
 rency by other and direct means, the 
 power to enact a protective tariff, and 
 the power of internal improvement, in 
 its broadest sense, are all powers which 
 the honorable gentleman himself has su]> 
 ported, has acted on, and in the exercise 
 
 of which, indeed, he has taken a distin- 
 guished lead in the counsels of Congress. 
 
 If this has been done, my purpose is 
 answered. I do not wish to prolong the 
 discussion, nor to spin it out into a col- 
 loquy. K the honorable member has 
 any thing new to bring forward; if he 
 has any charge to make, any proof, or 
 any specification ; if he has any thing to 
 advance against my opinions or my con- 
 duct, my honor or patriotism, I am still 
 at home. I am here. If not, then, so 
 far as I am concerned, this discussion 
 will here terminate. 
 
 I will say a few words, before I resume 
 my seat, on the motion now pending. 
 That motion is to strike out the specie- 
 paying part of the bill. I have a suspi- 
 cion. Sir, that the motion will prevail. If 
 it should, it will leave a great vacuum; 
 and how shall that vacuum be filled ? 
 
 The part proposed to be struck out is 
 that which requires all debts to govern- 
 ment to be paid in specie. It makes a 
 good provision for government, and for 
 public men, through all classes. The 
 Secretary of the Treasury, in his letter at 
 the last session, was still more watchful 
 of the interests of the holders of office. 
 He assured us, that, bad as the times 
 were, and notwithstanding tlie floods of 
 bad paper which deluged the country, 
 members of Congress should get gold 
 and silver. In my opinion, Sir, this is 
 beginning the use of good money in 
 payments at the wrong end of the list. 
 If there be bad money in the country, I 
 think that Secretaries and other execu- 
 tive officers, and especially members of 
 Congress, should be the last to receive 
 any good money ; because they have the 
 power, if they wiU do their duty, and 
 exercise it, of making the money of the 
 country good for all. I think. Sir, it 
 was a leading feature in Mr. Burke's 
 famous bill for economical reform, that 
 he provided, first of all, for those who 
 are least able to secure themselves. 
 Everybody else was to be well paid all 
 they were entitled to, before the minis- 
 ters of the crown, and other political 
 characters, should have any thing. This 
 seems to me very right. But we have a 
 precedent, Sir, in our own country, mor» 
 
470 
 
 REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN 
 
 directly to the purpose; and as that 
 which we now hope to strike out is the 
 part of the bill furnished or proposed 
 originally by the honorable member 
 from South Carolina, it will naturally 
 devolve on him to supply its place. I 
 wish, therefore, to draw his particular 
 attention to this precedent, which I am 
 now about to produce. 
 
 Most members of the Senate will re- 
 member, that before the establishment 
 of this government, and before or about 
 the time that the territory which now 
 constitutes the State of Tennessee was 
 ceded to Congress, the inhabitants of 
 the eastern part of that territory estab- 
 lished a government for themselves, and 
 called it the State of Franklin. They 
 adopted a very good constitution, pro- 
 viding for the usual branches of legis- 
 lative, executive, and judicial power. 
 They laid and collected taxes, and per- 
 formed other usual acts of legislation. 
 They had, for the present, it is true, no 
 maritime possessions, yet they followed 
 the common forms in constituting high 
 officers; and their governor was not only 
 captain-general and commander-in-chief, 
 but admiral also, so that the navy might 
 have a commander when there should be 
 a navy. 
 
 Well, Sir, the currency in this State 
 of Franklin became very much de- 
 ranged. Specie was scarce, and equally 
 scarce were the notes of specie-paying 
 banks. But the legislature did not pro- 
 pose any divorce of government and 
 people; they did not seek to establi.sh 
 two currencies, one for men in office, 
 and one for the rest of the community. 
 They were content with neighbor's fare. 
 It became necessary to pass what we 
 should call now-a-days the civil-list ap- 
 propriation bill. They passed such a 
 bill ; and when we shall have made a 
 void in the bill now before us by strik- 
 ing out specie payments for government, 
 I recommend to its friends to fill the 
 gap, by inserting, if not the same pro- 
 visions a.s were in the law of the State 
 of Franklin, at least soinetliing in the 
 same spirit. 
 
 The preamble of that law. Sir, be- 
 ^ns by reciting, that the collection of 
 
 taxes in specie had become ve?y oppres- 
 sive to the good people of the common- 
 wealth, for the want of a circulating 
 medium. A parallel ca.se to ours, Sir, 
 exactly. It recites further, that it is 
 the duty of the legislature to hear, at 
 all times, the prayer of their constit- 
 uents, and apply as speedy a remedy 
 as lies in their power. These senti- 
 ments are very just, and I sincerely wi.'^h 
 there was a thorough disposition here to 
 adopt the like. 
 
 Acting under the influence of these 
 sound opinions. Sir, the legislature of 
 Franklin passed a law for the support of 
 the civil list, which, as it is short, I will 
 beg pei-mission to read. It is as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 " Be it enacted by Oie General AssemUy of 
 the State of Franklin, and it is hereby enacted 
 by the authority of the same, That, from the 
 first day of January, a. d. 1789, the sala- 
 ries of the civil officers of this common- 
 wealth be as follows, to wit: 
 
 " His excellency, the governor, per annum, 
 one thousand deer-skins ; his honor, the 
 chief justice, five hundred do. do. ; tlie at- 
 torney-general, five hundred do. do. ; secre- 
 tary to his excellency the governor, five 
 hundred raccoon do. ; the treasurer of tlie 
 State, four hundred and fifty otter do.; 
 each county clerk, three hundred beaver 
 do. ; clerk of the house of commons, two 
 hundred raccoon do. ; members of assem- 
 bly, per diem, three do. do. ; justice's fee 
 for signing a warrant, one muskrat ilo. ; to 
 the constable, for serving a warrant, one 
 mink do. 
 
 " Enacted into a law this 18th day of Oc- 
 tober, 1788, under tiie great seal of tlie 
 State. 
 
 " Witness his excellency, &c. 
 " Governor, captain-general, commander-ir -chief , 
 and admiral in and over said State." 
 
 This, Sir, is the law, the spirit of 
 which I commend to gentlemen. I will 
 not speak of the appropriateness of <^hese 
 several allowances for the civil list. But 
 the example is good, and I am of opin- 
 ion that, until Congress shall perform 
 its duty, by seeing that the country en- 
 joys a good currency, the same medium 
 which the people are obliged to use, 
 whether it be skins or rags, is good 
 enoufrh for its own members. 
 
A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 FROM A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON 
 THE 18th of MAY, 1840, ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE BILL 
 ESTABLISHING A UNLF0R:\I SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 Let me remind you, then, in the first 
 place, Sir, that, commercial as the coun- 
 try is, and having experienced as it 
 has done, and experiencing as it now 
 does, great vicissitudes of trade and 
 business, it is almost forty years since 
 any law has been in force by which any 
 honest man, failing in business, could 
 be effectually discharged from debt by 
 surrendering his property. The former 
 bankrupt law was repealed on the 19th 
 of December, 1803. From that day to 
 this, the condition of an insolvent, how- 
 ever honest and worthy, has been ut- 
 terly hopeless, so far as he depended ou 
 any legal mode of relief. This state 
 of things has arisen from the peculiar 
 provisions of the Constitution of the 
 United States, and from the omission 
 by Congress to exercise this branch 
 of its constitutional power. By the 
 Constitution, the States are prohib- 
 ited from passing laws impairing the 
 obligation of contracts. Bankrupt laws 
 impair the obligation of contracts, if 
 they discharge the bankrupt from his 
 debts without payment. The States, 
 therefore, cannot pass such laws. The 
 power, then, is taken from the States, 
 and placed in our hands. It is true tliat 
 it has been decided, that, in regard to 
 contracts entered into alter the passage 
 of any State bankrupt law, between tlie 
 citizens of the State having such law, 
 and sued in the State courts, a State 
 discharge may prevail. So far, effect 
 
 has been given to State laws. I have 
 great respect, habitually, for judicial 
 decisions ; but it has nevertheless, I 
 nmst say, always appeared to me that 
 the distinctions on which these decisions 
 are founded are slender, and that they 
 evade, without answering, the objec- 
 tions founded on the great political and 
 commercial objects intended to be se- 
 cured by this part of the Constitution. 
 But these decisions, whether right or 
 wrong, afford no effectual relief. The 
 qualifications and limitations which I 
 have stated render them useless, as to 
 the purpose of a general discharge. So 
 much of the concerns of every man of 
 business is with citizens of other States 
 than his own, and with foreigners, that 
 the partial extent to which the validity 
 of State discharges reaches is of little 
 benefit. 
 
 The States, then, cannot pass effect- 
 ual bankrupt laws; that is, effectual for 
 the discharge of the debtor. There is 
 no doubt that most, if not all, the States 
 would now pass such laws, if they had 
 the power ; although their legislation 
 would be various, interfering, and full 
 of all the evils which the Constitution 
 of the United States intended to pro- 
 vide against. But they have not the 
 power; Congress, which has the power, 
 does not exercise it. This is the pe- 
 culiarity of our condition. The States 
 would pass bankrupt laws, but they can- 
 not; we can. but we will not. And be- 
 
472 
 
 A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 tween this want of power in the States 
 and want of will in Congress, unfortu- 
 uate insolvents are left to hopeless bond- 
 age. There are probably one or two hun- 
 dred thousand debtors, honest, sober, 
 and industrious, who drag out lives use- 
 less to themselves, useless to their fam- 
 ilies, and useless to their country, for no 
 reason but that they cannot be legally 
 discharged from debts in which misfor- 
 tunes have involved them, and which 
 there is no possibility of their ever pay- 
 ing. I repeat, again, that these cases 
 have now been accumulating for a whole 
 generation. 
 
 It is true they are not imprisoned; 
 but there may be, and there are, re- 
 straint and bondage outside the walls of 
 the jail, as well as in. Their power of 
 earning is, in truth, taken away, their 
 faculty of useful employment is par- 
 alyzed, and hope itself become extin- 
 guished. Creditors, generally, are not 
 inhuman or unkind; but there will be 
 found some who hold on, and the more 
 a debtor struggles to free himself, the 
 more they feel encouraged to hold on. 
 The mode of reasoning is, that, the 
 more honest the debtor may be, the 
 more industrious, the more disposed to 
 struggle and bear up against his misfor- 
 tunes, the greater the chance is, that, in 
 the end, especially if the humanity of 
 others shall have led them to release 
 him, their o\\Ti debts may be finally re- 
 covered. 
 
 Now, in this state of our constitu- 
 tional powers and duties, in this state 
 of our laws, and with this actually ex- 
 isting condition of so many insolvents 
 before us, it is not too serious to ask 
 every member of the Senate to put it to 
 his own conscience to say, whether we 
 are not bound to exercise our constitu- 
 tional duty. Can we abstain from ex- 
 ercising it? The States give to tlieir 
 own laws all the effect they can. This 
 shows that they desire the power to be 
 exercised. Several States have, in the 
 most solemn manner, made known tlieir 
 earnest wishes to Congress. If we still 
 refuse, what is to be done? Many of 
 these insolvent persons are young men 
 with young families. Like other men, 
 
 they have capacities both foi action and 
 enjoyment. Are we to stifle all these 
 for ever? Are we to suffer all these 
 persons, many of them meritorious and 
 respectable, to be pressed to the earth 
 for ever, by a load of hopeless debt? 
 The existing diversities and contradic- 
 tions of State laws on the subject ad- 
 mirably illustrate the objects of this 
 part of the Constitution, as stated by 
 'Mr. Madison; and they form tliat pre- 
 cise case for which the clause was in- 
 serted. The verj' evil intended to be pro- 
 vided against is before us, and around us, 
 and pressing us on all sides. How can 
 we, how dare we, make a perfect dead 
 letter of this part of the Constitution, 
 which we have sworn to support? The 
 insolvent persons have not the power ot 
 locomotion. They cannot travel fi-om 
 State to State. They are prisoners. To 
 my certain knowledge, there are many 
 who cannot even come here to the seat 
 of government, to present their peti- 
 tions to Congress, so great is their fear 
 that some creditor will dog then- heels, 
 and arrest them in some intervening 
 State, or in this District, in the hope 
 that friends will appear to save them, 
 by payment of the debt, from imprison- 
 ment. 
 
 These are truths; not creditable to 
 the country, but they are truths. I am 
 sorry for their existence. Sir, there 
 is one crime, quite too common, which 
 the laws of man do not punish, but 
 which cannot escape the justice of God; 
 and that is, the aiTest and confinement 
 of a debtor by his creditor, with no mo- 
 tive on earth but the hope that some 
 fi'ieud, or some relative, perhaps almost 
 as poor as himself, his mother it may 
 be, or his sisters, or his daughters, will 
 give up all their own little pittance, and 
 make beggars of themselves, to save him 
 froni the horrors of a loathsome jail. 
 Hmnan retribution cannot reach this 
 guilt; human feeling may not penetrate 
 the flinty heart that perpetrates it ; but 
 an hour is surely coming, with more 
 tlian human retribution on its wings, 
 when that flint shall be melted, either 
 by the power of penitence and grace, oi 
 in the fires of remorse 
 
A UNIFORM SYSTExM OF I5ANKUUFTCY. 
 
 473 
 
 Sir, I verily believe that the power of 
 perpetuating debts against debtors, for 
 no substantial good to the creditor hiiu- 
 eelf , and tlie power of imprisonment for 
 debt, at least as it existed in this coun- 
 try ten years ago, have imposed more 
 restraint on personal liberty than the 
 law of debtor and creditor imposes in 
 any other Christian aad commercial 
 country. If any public good were at- 
 tained, any high political object an- 
 swered, by such laws, there might be 
 some reason for counselling submission 
 and sufferance to individuals. But the 
 result is bad, every way. It is bad to the 
 public and to the coimtiy, which loses 
 the efforts and tlie industry of so many 
 useful and capable citizens. It is bad 
 to creditors, because there is no secu- 
 rity against preferences, no principle of 
 equality, and no encouragement for hon- 
 est, fair, and seasonable assignments of 
 effects. As to the debtor, however good 
 his intentions or earnest his endeavors, 
 it subdues his spu-it and degrades him 
 in his own esteem; and if he attempts 
 any thing for the purpose of obtaining 
 food and clothing for his family, he is 
 driven to unworthy shifts and disguises, 
 to the use of other persons' names, to 
 the adoption of the character of agent, 
 and various other contrivances, to keep 
 the little earnings of the day from the 
 reach of his creditors. Fathers act in 
 the name of their sons, sons act in the 
 name of their fathers; all constantly 
 exposed to the greatest temptation to 
 misrepresent facts and to evade the 
 law, if creditors should strike. All 
 this is evil, mimixed evil. And what 
 is it all for? Of what benefit to any- 
 body? "Who likes it? Who wishes 
 it? '\Miat class of creditors desire it? 
 "Wliat consideration of public good de- 
 mands it? 
 
 Sir, we talk much, and talk warmly, 
 ©f political liberty; and well we may, 
 for it is among the chief of public bless- 
 ings. But who can enjoy political liberty 
 if he is deprived, permanently, of per- 
 sona, liberty, and the exercise of his own 
 industiy and his own faculties? To 
 those unfortunate individuals, doomed 
 to the everlasting bondage of debt, what 
 
 is it that we have free institutions of 
 government? ^V^lat is it that we have 
 public and popular assemblies? What 
 is even this Constitution itself to them, 
 in its actual operation, and as we now 
 administer it? What is its aspect to 
 them, but an aspect of stern, implacable 
 severity? an aspect of refusal, denial, 
 and frowning rebuke? nay, more than 
 that, an aspect not only of austerity and 
 rebuke, but, as they must think it, oi 
 plain injustice also, since it will not re- 
 lieve them, nor suffer others to give them 
 relief? AVhat love can they feel towards 
 the Constitution of their countiy, which 
 has taken the power of striking off' their 
 bonds from their own paternal State 
 governments, and yet, inexorable to all 
 the cries of justice and of mercy, holds 
 it unexercised in its own fast and unre- 
 lenting gTasp? They find themselves 
 bondsmen, because we will not exe- 
 cute the commands of the Constitution i 
 bondsmen to debts they cannot pay, 
 and which all know they cannot pay, 
 and which take away the power of sup- 
 porting themselves. Other slaves have 
 masters, charged with the duty of sup- 
 port and protection ; but their masters 
 neither clothe, nor feed, nor shelter; 
 they only bind. 
 
 But, Sir, the fault is not in the Con- 
 stitution. The Constitution is benefi- 
 cent as well as wise in all its provisions 
 on this subject. The fault, I must be 
 allowed to say, is in us, who have suf- 
 fered ourselves quite too long to neglect 
 the duty incumbent upon us. The time 
 will come, Sir, when we shall look back 
 and wonder at the long delay of this just 
 and salutary measure. We shall then 
 feel as we now feel when we reflect on 
 that progress of opinion which has al- 
 ready done so much on another on- 
 nected subject; I mean the abolition of 
 imprisonment for debt. What should 
 we say at this day, if it were proposed 
 to re-establish arrest and imprisonment 
 for debt, as it existed in most of the 
 States even so late as twenty years ago? 
 I mean for debt alone, for mere, pure 
 debt, without charge or suspicion of 
 fraud or falsehood. 
 
 Sir, it is about that hngth of time. I 
 
474 
 
 A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BAXKRUPTCT. 
 
 think, since you,^ who now preside over 
 our deliberations, began liere your efforts 
 for the abolition of imprisonment for 
 debt; and a better work was never be- 
 gun in the Capitol. Ever remembered 
 and ever honored be that noble eifort! 
 You drew the attention of the public to 
 the question, whether, in a civilized and 
 Christian country, debt incurred with- 
 out fraud, and remaining unpaid with- 
 out fault, is a crime, and a crime fit to 
 be punished by denying to the offender 
 the enjoyment of the light of heaven, 
 and shutting him up within four walls. 
 Your own good sense, and that instinct 
 of right feeling which often outrinis sa- 
 gacity, carried you at once to a result to 
 which others were more slowly brought, 
 but to which nearly all have at length 
 been brought, by reason, reflection, and 
 argument. l''our movement led the way ; 
 it became an example, and has had a 
 powerful effect on both sides of the At- 
 lantic. Imprisonment for debt, or even 
 arrest and holding to bail for mere 
 debt, no longer exists in England; and 
 former laws on the subject have been 
 greatly modified and mitigated, as we 
 all know, in our States. " Abolition 
 of imprisonment for debt," your own 
 words in the title of your own bill, 
 has become the title of an act of Par- 
 liament. 
 
 Sir, I am glad of an occasion to pay 
 you the tribute of my sincere respect for 
 these your labors in the cause of human- 
 ity and enlightened policy. For tliese 
 labors thousands of grateful hearts have 
 thanked you ; and other thousands of 
 hearts, not yet full of joy for the accom- 
 plishment of their hopes, full, rather, at 
 the present moment, of deep and dis- 
 tressing anxiety, have yet the pleasure 
 to know that your advice, your counsel, 
 and your influence will all be given in 
 favor of what is intended for their relief 
 in the bill before us. 
 
 Mr. President, let us atone for the 
 omissions of the past by a prompt and 
 eflicient discharge of pre.sont duty. The 
 demand for this measure is not partial 
 or l<ical. It comes to us, earnest and 
 
 ' Hon. liicliard M. Johnson, Vice-President 
 of Uie L'liilod StutuH. 
 
 loud, from all classes and all quarters. 
 The time is come when we must answer 
 it to our own consciences, if we suffer 
 longer delay or postponement. High 
 hopes, high duties, and high responsibili- 
 ties concentrate themselves on this meas- 
 ure and this moment. AVith a power 
 to pass a bankrupt law, which no other 
 legislature in the country posses.ses, with 
 a power of giving relief to many, doing 
 injustice to none, 1 again ask every man 
 who hears me, if he can content himself 
 without an honest attempt to exercise 
 that power. We may think it would be 
 better to leave the power with the States ; 
 but it was not left with the States; they 
 have it not, and mb cannot give it to 
 them. It is in our hands, to be exer- 
 cised by us, or to be for ever useless and 
 lifeless. Under these circumstances, 
 does not every man's heart t«ll him that 
 he has a duty to discharge? If the final 
 vote shall be given this day, and if that 
 vote shall leave thousands of our fellow- 
 citizens and their families, in hopeless 
 and helpless distress, to everlasting sub- 
 jection to irredeemable debt, can we go 
 bj our beds with satisfied consciences? 
 Can we lay our heads iipon our pillows, 
 and, without self-reproach, supplicate 
 the Almiglity Mercy to forgive us our 
 debts as we forgive our debtors? Sir, 
 let us meet the unanimous wishes of the 
 country, and proclaim relief to the un- 
 fortunate throughout the land. AVhat 
 should hinder? What should stay our 
 hands from this good work? Creditors 
 do not oppo.se it, — they apply for it; 
 debtors solicit it, with an importunity, 
 earnestness, and arixiety not to be de- 
 scribed; the Constitution enjoins it; and 
 all the considerations of justice, policy, 
 and jiropriety. which are wrapped up in 
 the phrase Public Duty, demand it, as I 
 think, and demand it loudly and impera- 
 tively, at our hands. Sir, let us gratify 
 the whole country, for once, with the 
 joyous clang of chains, jojous because 
 heard falling from the limbs of men. 
 The wisest among those whom I address 
 can desire nothing more beneficial than 
 this measure, or more universally de- 
 sired; and he who is youngest may not 
 expect to live long enough to see a bet- 
 
A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 475 
 
 ter opportunity of causing new pleasures 
 and a luippincss long untasted to spring 
 up in the hearts of the poor and the 
 humble. How many husbands and fa- 
 thers are looking with hopes which they 
 cannot suppress, and yet liardly dare to 
 cherish, for tlie result of this debate! 
 How many wives and mothers will pass 
 sleepless and feverish nights, until they 
 know whether they and their families 
 eiiKll bo raised from poverty, de.sjK)nd- 
 
 ency, and despair, and restored again 
 to the circles of industrious, indepen- 
 dent, and happy life 1 
 
 Sir, let it be to the honor of Congress 
 that, in these days of political strife and 
 controversy, we have laid aside for once 
 the sin that most easily besets us, and, 
 with unanimity of counsel, and with 
 singleness of heart and of purpose, have 
 accomplished for our country one mea<^ 
 are of unquestionable good 
 
"THE LOG CABIN CANDIDATE." 
 
 KROM A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE GREAT MASS MEETING AT SARATOGA 
 NEW YORK, ON TUE 12th OF AUGUST, 1340, 
 
 liuT it is the cry and effort of the 
 times to stimulate those who are called 
 poor against those wlio are called rich ; 
 and yet, among those who urge this crj', 
 and seek to profit by it, there is be- 
 trayed sometimes an occasional sneer at 
 whatever savors of humble life. Wit- 
 ness the reproach against a candi- 
 date now before the people for their 
 highest honors, that a log cabin, with 
 plenty of hard cider, is good enough for 
 him! 
 
 It appears to some persons, that a 
 great deal too much use is made of the 
 Bjinbol of the log cabin. Xo man of 
 sense supposes, certainly, that the hav- 
 ing lived in a log cabin is any further 
 proof of qualification for the Presidency, 
 than as it creates a presumption that 
 any one who, rising from humble con- 
 dition, or under unfavorable circum- 
 stances, has been able to attract a con- 
 siderable degree of public attention, is 
 possessed of reputable qualities, moral 
 and intellectual. 
 
 But it is to be remembered, that this 
 matter of the log cabin originated, not 
 with tlie friends of the Whig candidate, 
 but with his enemies. Soon after his 
 nomination at Ilarrisburg, a writer for 
 cue of the leading administration papers 
 spoke of his " log cabin," and his use of 
 " hard cider," by way of sneer and re- 
 proacli. As niiglit have been expected, 
 (for pretenders are apt to be tlirown off 
 their guard,) this taunt at humble life 
 
 proceeded from the party which claims 
 a monopoly of the puiest democracy. 
 The whole party appeared to enjoy it, 
 or, at least, they countenanced it by si- 
 lent acquiescence; for I do not know 
 that, to tliis day, any eminent indi- 
 vidual or any leading newspajier at- 
 tached to the administration has rebuked 
 this scornful jeering at the supposed 
 humble condition or circumstances in 
 life, past or present, of a worthy man 
 and a war-worn soldier. But it touched 
 a tender point in the public feeling. It 
 naturallv roused indignation. Vkliat was 
 intended as reproach was immediately 
 seized on as merit. "Be it sol Be it 
 so! " was the instant burst of the public 
 voice. " Let him be the log cabin can- 
 didate. AVhat you say in scorn, we will 
 shout with all our lungs. From this 
 day forward, we have our cry of rally; 
 and we shall see whether he who has 
 dwelt in one of the rude abodes of the 
 West may not become the best house in 
 the country! " 
 
 All this is natm-al, and springs from 
 sources of just feeling. Other things. 
 Gentlemen, have had a similar orighi. 
 We all know that the term "Whig" 
 was bestowed in derision, two hundred 
 years ago, on those who were thouglit 
 too fonil of liberty; and our national air 
 of " Yankee Doodle " was composed by 
 British oiricers, in ridicule of the Amer- 
 ican troops. Yet, erelong, the last of 
 the British armies laid down its arms at 
 
THE LOG CABIN CANDIDATE. 
 
 477 
 
 Yorktown, while this same air was play- 
 ing ill the ears of ofEcers and men. 
 Gentlemen, it is only shallow-minded 
 pretenders who either make distin- 
 guished origin matter of jiersoiial merit, 
 or obscure origin matter of personal re- 
 proach. Taunt and scofhng at the hum- 
 ble condition of early life affect nobody, 
 in this country, but those who are fool- 
 ish enough to indulge in them, and they 
 are generally sufficiently punished by 
 public rebuke. A man who is not 
 ashamed of himself need not be ashamed 
 of his early condition. 
 
 Gentlemen, it did not happen to me 
 to be born in a log cabin ; but my elder 
 brothers and sisters were born in a log 
 cabin, raised amid the snow-drifts of 
 New Hampshire, at a period so early 
 that, when the smoke first rose from its 
 rude chimney, and curled over the frozen 
 hills, there was no similar evidence of a 
 white man's habitation between it and 
 the settlements on the rivers of Canada. 
 
 Its remains still exist. I make to it an 
 annual visit. I carry my children to it, 
 to teach them the hardships endured by 
 the generations which have gone before 
 them. I love to dwell on the tender 
 recollections, the kindred ties, the early 
 affections, and the toucliing narratives 
 and incidents, wliich mingle with all I 
 know of this primitive family abode. I 
 weep to til ink that none of those who 
 inhabited it are now among the living; 
 and if ever I am ashamed of it, or if I 
 ever fail in affectionate veneration for 
 him who reared it, and defended it 
 against savage violence and destruction, 
 cherished all the domestic virtues be- 
 neath its roof, and, through the fire and 
 blood of a seven years' revolutionary 
 war, shrunk from no danger, no toil, no 
 sacrifice, to serve his country, and to 
 raise his children to a condition better 
 than his owmi, may my name and the 
 name of my posterity be blotted for ever 
 from the memory of mankind! 
 
ADDRESS TO THE LADIES OF RICHMOND. 
 
 REMARKS AT A PURLIC RECEPTIOX BY THE LADIES OF RICHMOND, VIB 
 GIXIA, ON THE 5th OF OCTOBER, ]840. 
 
 |TrTE visit of Mr. TVcbster to Richmond 
 was short, and his public enf^agenicnts so 
 numerous, as to put it out of his power to 
 return tlie calls of his friends, or to p<ay his 
 respects to their families. It was accord- 
 inpjly proposed that the ladies who niifjht 
 desire to do so sliould assemble in the 
 ' Lo<^ Cabin," and that he should there pay 
 his respects to them collectively. Tiie 
 meeting was large, and the building quite 
 full. On being introduced to them in a 
 few appropriate remarks, by Mr. Lyons, 
 Mr. Webster addressed them in the follow- 
 ing speech.] 
 
 L.A.DIES, — I am very sure I owe the 
 plea-sure I now enjoy to your kind dis- 
 po.sition, which ha^ given me the oppor- 
 tunity to pre.sent my thanks and my 
 re.spects to you thus collectively, since 
 the shortness of my stay in the city does 
 not allow me the happiness of calling 
 upon tho.se, severally and individually, 
 from members of whose families I have 
 received kindness and notice. And, in 
 the first place, I wi.sh to express to you 
 my deep and hearty thanks, as I have 
 endeavored to do to your fathers, your 
 :iUsV)ands, and your brothers, for the 
 unbounded hospitality I have received 
 ever since I came among you. Tliis is 
 regi.stered, I assure you, in a grateful 
 heart, in characters of an enduring na- 
 ture. The rough contests of the politi- 
 cal world are not suited to the dignity 
 and the delicacy of your sex; but you 
 po.ssess the intelligence to know how 
 much of that liappiness which you are 
 entitled to Impe for, both for yourselves 
 and for your children, depends on the 
 right administration of governmeut, and 
 
 a proper tone of public morals. That 
 is a subject on which the moral percejv 
 tions of woman are both quicker and 
 juster than tho.se of the otlier .sex. I 
 do not speak of that administration of 
 government whose object is merely the 
 protection of industry, the preservation 
 of civil liberty, and the securing to en- 
 terprise of its due reward. I speak of 
 government in a somewhat higher point 
 of view; I speak of it in regard to its 
 influence on the morals and sentiments 
 of the community. We live in an age 
 distingui.-ilied for great benevolent ex- 
 ertion, in which the affluent are con.se- 
 crating the means they po.ssess to the 
 endowment of colleges and academies, 
 to the building of churches, to the sup- 
 port of religion and religious worship, tc 
 the encouragement of schools, lyceums, 
 and athenaeums, and other means of 
 general popular instruction. This is all 
 well; it is admirable; it augurs well for 
 the prospects of ensuing generations. 
 But I have sometimes thought, that, 
 amidst all this activity and zeal of the 
 good and tiie benevolent, the influence 
 of government on the morals and on 
 the religious ft'clings of the commu- 
 nity is apt to be overlooked or under- 
 rated. I speak, of course, of its in- 
 direct influence, of the power of its 
 example, and the general tone wliich it 
 inspires. 
 
 A popular government, in all these 
 respects, is a most powerful institution; 
 more powerful, as it has sometimes ap- 
 peared to me, than the influence of most 
 
ADDRESS TO THE LADIES OF RICHMOND. 
 
 479 
 
 other hun.an institutions put together, 
 either for good or for evil, according to 
 its character. Its example, its tone, 
 whether of regard or dii^regard for moral 
 obligation, is most important to human 
 happiness; it is among those things 
 which most affect the political morals of 
 mankind, and their general morals also. 
 1 advert to this, because thei'e has been 
 put forth, in modern times, the false 
 maxim, that there is one morality for 
 politics, and another morality for other 
 things; that, in their political conduct 
 to their opponents, men may say and do 
 that which they would never think of 
 saying or doing in the personal relations 
 of private life. There has been openly 
 announced a sentiment, which I con- 
 sider as the very essence of false moral- 
 ity, which declares that " all is fair in 
 politics." If a man speaks falsely or 
 caluninioLisly of his neighbor, and is 
 reproached for the offence, the ready 
 excuse is this: " It was in relation to 
 public and political matters; I cherished 
 no personal ill-will whatever against 
 that individual, but quite the contrary; 
 I spoke of my adversary merely as a 
 political man." In my opinion, the day 
 is coming when falsehood will stand for 
 falsehood, and calumny will be treated as 
 a breach of the commandment, whether 
 it be committed politically or in the con- 
 cerns of private life. 
 
 It is by the promulgation of sound 
 morals in the community, and more es- 
 pecially by the training and instruction 
 of the young, that woman performs her 
 part towards the preservation of a free 
 government. It is generally admitted 
 that public liberty, and the perpetuity 
 of a free constitution, rest on the virtue 
 and intelligence of the community which 
 enjoys it. How is that virtue to be in- 
 spired, and how is that intelligence to be 
 communicated? Bonajjarte once asked 
 Madame de Stael in what manner he 
 could best promote the happiness of 
 France. Iler reply is full of political 
 wisdom. She said, " Instruct the moth- 
 ers of the French people." Mothers 
 are, indeed, the affectionate and effective 
 teaclu'rs of the human race. The moth- 
 er begins her process of training with the 
 
 infant in her arms. It is she who directs, 
 so to speak, its first mental and spiritual 
 
 pulsations. She conducts it along the 
 impressible years of cliildhood and youth, 
 and hopes to deliver it to the stern con- 
 flicts and tumultuous scenes of life, 
 armed by tliose good principles which 
 her child has received from maternal 
 care and love. 
 
 If we draw within the circle of oiu 
 contemplation tlie mothers of a civdized 
 nation, what do we seeV We behold so 
 many artificers working, not on frail 
 and perishable matter, but on the im- 
 mortal mind, moulding and fashioning 
 beings who are to exist for ever. We 
 applaud the artist whose skill and ge- 
 nius present the mimic man upon the 
 canvas; we admire and celebrate tlie 
 sculptor who works out that same image 
 in enduring marble; but how insignifi- 
 cant are these achievements, though the 
 highest and the fairest in all the de- 
 partments of art, in comparison with 
 tlie great vocation of human mothers! 
 They work, not upon the canvas that 
 shall perish, or the marble that shall 
 crumble into dust, but upon mind, upon 
 spirit, which is to last for ever, and which 
 is to bear, for good or evil, throughout 
 its duration, the impress of a mother's 
 plastic hand. 
 
 I have already expressed the opinion, 
 which all allow to be correct, that our 
 security for the duration of the free 
 institutions which bless our country 
 depends upon habits of virtue and the 
 prevalence of knowledge and of educa- 
 tion. The attainment of knowledge 
 does not comprise all which is contained 
 in the larger term of education. The 
 feelings are to be disciplined; the pas- 
 sions are to be restrained; true and 
 w'orthy motives are to be inspired; a 
 profound religious feeling is to be in- 
 stilled, and pure morality inculcated, 
 under all circumstances. All this is 
 comprised in education. ^Mothers who 
 are faithful to this great duty will tell 
 their children, that neither in political 
 nor in any other concerns of life can 
 man ever withdraw himself from the 
 perpetual obligations of conscience and 
 of duty; that in every act, whether pub- 
 
480 
 
 ADDRESS TO THE LADIES OF RICHMOND. 
 
 He or private, he incurs a just responsi- 
 bility; and that in no condition is he 
 warranted in trifling with important 
 rights and obligations. They will im- 
 press upon their children the truth, that 
 the exercise of the elective franchise is 
 a social duty, of as solemn a nature as 
 man can be called to peiiorm; that a 
 man may not innocently trifle with his 
 vote; that every free elector is a trustee, 
 as well for others as himself; and that 
 every man and every measure he sup- 
 ports has an important beaing on the 
 interests of others, as well as on his 
 own. It is in the inculcation of high 
 and pure morals such as these, that, in 
 a free republic, woman performs her 
 sacred duty, and fulfils her destiny. 
 The French, as you know, are remark- 
 able for their fondness for sententious 
 phrases, in which much meaning is con- 
 
 densed into a small space. I noticed 
 lately, on the title-page of one of the 
 books of popular instruction in France, 
 this motto: "Four instruction on the 
 heads of the people! you owe them that 
 baptism." And, certainly, if there be 
 any duty which may be described by a 
 reference to that great institute of re- 
 ligion, — a duty approaching it in im 
 portance, perhaps next to it in obliga- 
 tion, — it is this. 
 
 I know you hardly expect me to ad- 
 dress you on the popular political topics 
 of the day. You read enough, you hear 
 quite enough, on those subjects. You 
 expect me only to meet you, and to 
 tender my profound thanks for this 
 marked proof of your regard, and will 
 kindly receive the assurances with which 
 I tender to you, on parting, my affec- 
 tionate respects and best wishes. 
 
EECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 a SPEECH MADE IX FAXEUIL HALL, OX THE 30th OF SEPTEMBER, JS12, AT 
 A PUBLIC RECEPTIOX GIVEX TO MR, WEBSTER, OX HIS RETURX TO 
 BOSTOX, AFTER THE XEGOTIATIOX OF THE TREATY OF WASHIXGTON 
 
 [On the accession of General Harrison to 
 the Presidency of the United States, on tlie 
 4tli of Marcli, 1841, Mr. Wel)ster was called 
 to the office of Secretary of State, in which, 
 after the President's untimely death, he con- 
 tinued under Mr. Tjder for about two years. 
 The relations of the country with Great 
 Britain were at that time in a ver3' critical 
 position. The most important and difficult 
 subject which engaged the attention of the 
 government, while he filled the Department 
 of State, was the negotiation of the treaty 
 with Great Britain, which was signed at 
 Washington on the 9th of August, 1842. 
 The other members of General Harrison's 
 Cabinet having resigned their places in the 
 autumn of 1841, discontent was felt by some 
 of their friends, that ]Mr. Webster should 
 have consented to retain his. But as Mr. 
 Tyler continued to place entire confidence 
 in Mr. Webster's administration of the De- 
 partment of State, the great importance of 
 pursuing a steady line of policy in reference 
 to foreign affairs, and especially the hope 
 of averting a rupture with England by an 
 honoral)Ie settlement of our difficulties with 
 that country, induced Mr. AVebster to re- 
 main at his post. 
 
 On occasion of a visit made by him to 
 Boston, after the adjournment of Congress, 
 in August, 1842, a number of his friends 
 were desirous of manifesting their sense of 
 the services which he had rendered to the 
 country by pursuing this course. A pub- 
 lic meeting of citizens was accordingly held 
 in Far:euil Hall, on tlie 30th of September, 
 1S42. At this meeting the following speech 
 was made] 
 
 I KNOW not liow it is, i\rr. !Mayor, but 
 there is something in the echoes of these 
 walls, or in this sea of upturned faces 
 
 which I behold before me, or in the 
 genius that always hovers over this 
 place, fanning ardent and patriotic feel- 
 ing by every motion of its wings, — 1 
 know not how it is, but there is some- 
 thing that excites me strangely, deeply, 
 before I even begin to speak. It cannot 
 be doubted that tliis salutation and 
 greeting from my fellow-citizens of Bos- 
 ton is a tribute dear to my heart. Bos- 
 ton is indeed my home, my cherished 
 home. It is now more than twenty- 
 five years since I came to it with my 
 family, to pursue, here in this enlight- 
 ened metropolis, those objects of pro- 
 fessional life for which my studies and 
 education were designed to fit me. It is 
 twenty years since I was invited by the 
 citizens of Boston to take upon myself 
 an office of public trust in their service.' 
 It gives me infinite pleasure to see here 
 to-day, among those who hold the seats 
 yielded to such as are more advanced in 
 life, not a few of the gentlemen wlio 
 were earnestly instrumental in inducing 
 me to enter upon a course of life wholly 
 unexpected, and to devote myself to the 
 service of the public. 
 
 Whenever the duties of public life 
 have withdrawn me from this home, I 
 have felt it, nevertheless, to be the at- 
 tractive spot to which all local affection 
 tended. And now that the progress oJ 
 
 1 The office of Representative in Congress. 
 
 31 
 
482 
 
 RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 time must shortly Vring about the pe- 
 Mod, if it should not be hastened by the 
 progress of events, when the duties of 
 public life shall yield to the influences of 
 advancing years, I cherish no hope more 
 precious, than to pass here in these asso- 
 ciations and among these friends what 
 may remain to me of life ; and to leave 
 in the midst of you, fellow-citizens, par- 
 taking of your fortunes, whether for 
 good or for evil, those who bear my 
 name, and inherit my blood. 
 
 The Mayor has alluded, very kindly, 
 to the exertions which I have made 
 since I have held a position in the Cabi- 
 net, and especially to the results of the 
 negotiation in which I have been recently 
 engaged. I hope, fellow-citizens, that 
 something has been done which may 
 prove permanently useful to tlie public. 
 I have endeavored to do something, and 
 I hope my endeavors have not been in 
 vain. I have had a hard summer's 
 work, it is true, but I am not wholly 
 miused to hard work. I have had some 
 anxious days, I have spent some sleep- 
 less nights; but if the results of my 
 efforts shall be approved by the commu- 
 nity, I am richly compensated. jNIy 
 other days will be the happier, and my 
 other nights will be given to a sweeter 
 repose. 
 
 It was an object of the highest na- 
 tional importance, no doubt, to disperse 
 the clouds which threatened a storm be- 
 tween England and America. For sev- 
 eral years past there has been a class of 
 questions open between the two coun- 
 tries, which have not always threatened 
 war, but which have prevented the peo- 
 ple from being assured of permanent 
 peace. 
 
 His Honor tb 3 IMayor has paid a just 
 tribute to that lamented personage, by 
 whom, in 1841, 1 was called to the place 
 I now occupy; and although, Gentle- 
 men, I know it is in veiy bad taste to 
 speak much of one's self, yet here, 
 among my friends and neighbors. T wish 
 to say a word or two on subjects in 
 which I am concerned. With the late 
 President Harrison I had contracted an 
 acquaintance while we were both mem- 
 bers of Congress, and 1 had an opportu- 
 
 nity of renewing it afterwards in his 
 own house, and elsewhere. I have made 
 no exhibition or boast of the confidence 
 which it was his pleasure to repose in 
 me; but circumstances, hardly worthy 
 of serious notice, have rendered it not 
 improper for me to say on this occasion, 
 that as soon as President Harrison was 
 elected, without, of course, one word 
 from me, he wrote to me inviting me to 
 take a place in his Cabinet, leaving to 
 me the choice of that place, and asking 
 my advice as to the persons that should 
 fi^U every other place in it. He ex- 
 pressed rather a wish that I should take 
 the administration of the ti'easury, be- 
 cause, as he was pleased to say, I had 
 devoted mj^self with success to the ex- 
 amination of the questions of currency 
 and finance, and he felt that the wants 
 of the country, — the necessities of the 
 country, on the great subjects of cur- 
 rency and finance, — were moving causes 
 that produced the revolution which had 
 placed him in the presidential chair. 
 
 It so happened, Gentlemen, that my 
 preference was for another place, — foi 
 that which I have now the honor to fill. 
 I felt all its responsibilities ; but I must 
 say, that, with whatever attention I 
 had considered the general questions of 
 finance, I felt more competent and will- 
 ing to undertake the duties of an otfice 
 which did not involve the daily di-udgeiy 
 of the treasury. 
 
 I was not disappointed. Gentlemen, in 
 the exigency which then existed in our 
 foreign relations. I was not unaware of 
 all the diliiculties which hung over us; 
 for although the whole of the danger was 
 not at that moment developed, the cause 
 of it was known, and it seemed as if an 
 outbreak was inevitable. 1 allude now 
 to that occurrence on the frontier ol 
 which the chairman has already spoken, 
 which took place in tlie winter of 1841 
 the case of Alexander McLeod. 
 
 A year or two before, the Canadian 
 government had seen fit to authorize a 
 military incursion, for a particular pur- 
 pose, within the territory of the United 
 States. That purpose was to destroy a 
 steamboat, chained with being employed 
 for hostile purposes against its forces 
 
RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 483 
 
 and the peaceable subjects of the crown. 
 The act was avowed by tli<^ British gov- 
 ernment at home as a public act. Alex- 
 ander i\lcLeod, a person who individ- 
 ually could claim no regard or sympatliy, 
 happened to be one of the agents who, 
 in a military character, performed the 
 act of their sovereign. Coming into the 
 United States some years after, he was 
 arrested under a charge of homicide com- 
 mitted in this act, and was held to trial 
 as for a private felony. 
 
 According to mj- apprehensions, a pro- 
 ceeding of this kind was directly adverse 
 to the well-settled doctrines of the pub- 
 lic law. It could not but be received 
 with lively indignation, not only by the 
 British government, but among the peo- 
 ple of England. It would be so re- 
 ceived among us. If a citizen of the 
 United States should as a military man 
 receive an order of his government and 
 obey it, (and he must either obey it or 
 be hanged,) and should afterwards, in 
 the territory of another power, which by 
 that act he had offended, be tried for a 
 violation of its law, as for a crime, and 
 threatened with individual punishment, 
 there is not a man in the United States 
 who would not cry out for redress and 
 for vengeance. Any elevated govern- 
 ment, in a case like this, w^Iiere one of 
 its citizens, in the performance of his 
 duty, incurs such menaces and danger, 
 assumes the responsibility ; any elevated 
 government saj\s, " The act was mine, — 
 I am the man"; — "Adsum qui feci, in 
 me convertite ferrum." 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, information of the 
 action of the British government on this 
 subject was transmitted to us at Wash- 
 ington within a few days after the instal- 
 lation of General Harrison. I did not 
 think that it was proper to make public 
 then, nor is it important to say now, all 
 that we knew on the subject; but I will 
 tell you, in general terms, that if all that 
 WIS known at "Washington then had 
 been divulged throughout the country, 
 the value of the shipping interest of this 
 city, and of every other interest con- 
 nected with the commerce of the country, 
 would have been depressed one half in 
 sLx. hours I thought that the concus- 
 
 sion might be averted, by holding up to 
 view the principles of public law by 
 which this question ought to be settled, 
 and by demanding an apology for what- 
 ever had been done against those princi- 
 ples of liublic law by the British govern- 
 ment or its officers. I thought we ought 
 to put ourselves right in the first place, 
 and then we could insist that they should 
 do right in the next place. When in 
 England, in the year 1839, I had occa- 
 sion to address a large and resjiectable 
 assemblage; and allusion having been 
 made to the relations of things between 
 the two countries, I stated then, what I 
 thought and now think, that in any con- 
 troversy which should terminate in war 
 between the United States and England, 
 the only eminent advantage that either 
 would possess would be found in the rec 
 titude of its cause. With the right on 
 our side, we are a match for England; 
 and with the right on her side, she is a 
 match for us, or for anybody. 
 
 We live in an age, fellow-citizens, 
 when there has been established among 
 the nations a more elevated tribunal than 
 ever before existed on earth ; I mean the 
 tribunal of the enlightened public opin- 
 ion of the world. Governments cannot 
 go to war now, either with or against 
 the consent of their own subjects or peo- 
 ple, without the reprobation of other 
 states, unless for grounds and reasons 
 justifying them in the general judgment 
 of mankind. The judgment of civiliza- 
 tion, of commerce, and of that heavenly 
 light that beams over Christendom, 
 restrains men, congresses, parliaments, 
 princes, and people from gratifying the 
 inordinate love of ambition through the 
 bloody scenes of war. It has been wisely 
 said, and it is true, that every settle- 
 ment of national differences between 
 Christian states by fair negotiation, 
 without resort to arms, is a new illus- 
 tration and a new proof of the benign 
 influence of the Christian faith. 
 
 With regard to the terms of this 
 treaty, and in relation to the other sub- 
 jects connected with it, it is somewhat 
 awkward for me to speak, because the 
 documents connected with them have 
 not been made public by authority. But 
 
484 
 
 EECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 I persuade myself, that, when the whole 
 ehall be calmly considered, it will be 
 Been that there was throughout a fervent 
 disposition to maintain the interest and 
 honor of the country, united with a 
 proper regard foi the preservation of 
 peace between us and the gi-eatest com- 
 mercial nation of the world. 
 
 Gentlemen, while I receive these com- 
 mendations which you have bestowed, I 
 have an agreeable duty to perform to 
 others. In the lirst place, I have great 
 pleasure in bear.ng testimony to the in- 
 telligent interest manifested by the Pres- 
 ident of the United States, under whose 
 authority, of course, I constantly acted 
 thnmghout the negotiation, and his sin- 
 cere and anxious desire that it might re- 
 sult successfully. I take great pleasure 
 in acknowledging here, as I will ac- 
 knowledge everywhere, my obligations 
 to him for the unbroken and steady con- 
 fidence reposed in me through the whole 
 progress of an affair not unimportant to 
 the country, and infinitely important to 
 my own reputation. 
 
 A negotiator disparaged, distrusted, 
 treated with jealousy by his own gov- 
 ernment, would be indeed a very unequal 
 match for a cool and sagacious represent- 
 ative of one of the proudest and most 
 powerful monarchies of Europe, possess- 
 ing in the fullest extent the confidence 
 of liis government, and authorized to 
 bind it in concerns of the greatest im- 
 portance. I shall never forget the frank- 
 ness and generosity with which, after a 
 full and free interchange of suggestions 
 ui;>on the subject, I was told by the Pres- 
 ident that on my shoulders rested the 
 responsibility of the negotiation, and on 
 my discretion and judgment should rest 
 the lead of every measure. I desire also 
 to speak here of the hearty co-operation 
 rendered every day by the other gentle- 
 men connected with the administration, 
 from every one of whom I received im- 
 portant assistance. I speak with satis- 
 faction, also, of the useful labors of all 
 the Commissioners, although I need 
 hardly say here, what has been already 
 Baid officially, that the highest respect is 
 due to the Commissioners fnim Maine 
 and Mas.sachusetts for their fanhful ad- 
 
 herence to the rights of their own States, 
 mingled with a cordial co-operation in 
 what was required by the general inter- 
 ests of the United States. And I hope 
 I shall not be considered as trespassing 
 on this occasion, if I speak of the happy 
 selection made by England cf a persoa 
 to represent her government on tliis oc- 
 casion.^ — a thorough Englishman, un- 
 derstanding and appreciating the great 
 objects and interests of his own govern- 
 ment, of large and liberal views, and oi 
 such standing and weight of charactei 
 at home, as to impress a feeling of ap- 
 prrbation of his course upon both gov- 
 ernment and people. He was fully ac- 
 quainted with the subject, and always, 
 on all occasions, as far as his allegiance 
 and duty permitted, felt and manifested 
 good-will towards this country. 
 
 Aside from the question of the boun- 
 dary, there were other important subjects 
 to be considered, to which 1 know not 
 whether this is a proper occasion to al- 
 lude. "When the results of the negotia- 
 tion shall be fully before the public, it 
 will be seen that these other questions 
 have not been neglected, questions of 
 great moment and importance to the 
 country; and then I shall look with con- 
 cern, but with faith and trust, for the 
 judgment of that country upon them. 
 It is but just to take notice of a very im- 
 portant act, intended to j^rovide for such 
 cases as ilcLeod's, for which the country 
 is indebted to the AVhig majorities in the 
 two houses of Congress, acting upon 
 the President's recommendation. Events 
 showed the absolute necessity of remov- 
 ing into the national tribunals questions 
 involving the peace and honcr of the 
 United States. 
 
 There yet remain, Gentlemen, several 
 other subjects still unsettled with Eng- 
 land. First, there is that concerning 
 the trade between the United States and 
 the possessions of England, on this con- 
 tinent and in the West Indies. It has 
 been my duty to look into that subject, 
 and to keep the run of it, as we say, 
 from the arrangement of 1820 and 18:Ui, 
 until the present time. That arrungo- 
 mcnt was one unfavorable to the ship- 
 1 Lord Ashburton. 
 
RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 485 
 
 piiig iuleresls of the United States, and 
 esj^cially so to he New England States. 
 To adjust these rekitions is an impor- 
 tant subject, either for diplomatic nego- 
 tiation, or the consideration of Congress. 
 One or both houses of Congress, indeed- 
 hav3 already called ii[ion the proper de- 
 partment for a report upon the opera- 
 tions of that arrangement, and a com- 
 mittee of the House of Keprcsentatives 
 has made a report, showing that some 
 adjustment of these relations is of vital 
 iiiiportance to the future prosperity of 
 our navigating interests. 
 
 There is another question, somewhat 
 more remote; that of the Northwest 
 Boundary, where the possessions of the 
 two coimtries touch each other upon the 
 Pacific. There are evident public rea- 
 sons why that question should be settled 
 before the country becomes peopled. 
 
 There are also. Gentlemen, many open 
 questions respecting our relations with 
 other governments. Upon most of the 
 other States of this continent, citizens 
 of the United States have claims, with 
 regard to which the delays already in- 
 cun-ed have caused great injustice ; and 
 it becomes the government of the United 
 States, by a calm and dignified course, 
 and a deliberate and vigorous tone of 
 administration of public affairs, to se- 
 cure prompt justice to om* citi:jens in 
 these quarters. 
 
 I am here to-day as a guest. I was 
 invited by a number of highly valued 
 personal and political friends to partake 
 with them of a public dinner, for the 
 purpose of giving them an opportmiity 
 to pass the usual greeting of friends 
 upon my return; of testifying theii- re- 
 spect for my public services heretofore ; 
 antl of exchanging congratulations upon 
 the results of the late negotiation. It 
 was at my instance that the proposed 
 dinner took the form of this meeting, 
 and, instead of meeting them at the 
 festive board, I agreed to meet them, 
 and those who chose to meet me with 
 tliem, here. Still, the general character 
 of the meeting seems not to be changed. 
 I am here as a guest; here to receive 
 greetings and salutations for particular 
 services, and not under any intimation 
 
 or expectation that I should address the 
 gentlemen who invited me or others 
 here, upon subjects not suggested by 
 themselves. It would not become me 
 to use the occasion for any more general 
 jnirpose. Because, although I have a 
 design, at some time not far distant, to 
 make known my sentiments upon po- 
 litical matters generally, and upon the 
 l^olitical state of the country and that 
 of its several parties, yet I know very 
 well that I should be trespassing beyond 
 the bounds of politeness and propriety, 
 should I enter upon this whole wide 
 field now. I will not enter upon it, be- 
 cause the gentlemen Avho invited me en- 
 tertain on many of these to2)ics views 
 different from my own, and they would 
 very properly say, that they came here 
 to meet Mr. Webster, to congratulate 
 him upon the late negotiation, and to 
 exchange sentiments upon matters about 
 which they agreed with him; and that 
 it was not in very correct taste for him 
 to use the occasion to express opinions 
 upon other subjects on which they differ. 
 It is on that account that I shall forbear 
 discussing political subjects at large, and 
 shall endeavor to confine my remarks to 
 what may be considered as affecting my- 
 self, directly or indirectly. 
 
 The Mayor was kind enough to say, 
 that having, in his judgment, performed 
 the duties of my own department to the 
 satisfaction of my country, it might be 
 left to me to take care of my own honor 
 and reputation. I suppose that he meant 
 to say, that in the present distracted 
 state of the AMiig party, and among the 
 contrariety of opinions that prevail (if 
 there be a contrariety of opinion) as to 
 the com'se proper for me to pursue, the 
 decision of that question might be left 
 to myself. I am exactly of his opinion. 
 I am quite of opinion that on a question 
 touching my own honor and character, 
 as I am to bear the consequences of the 
 decision, I had a gi'eat deal better be 
 trusted to make it. No man feels more 
 highly the advantage of the advice of 
 friends than I do ; but on a question so 
 delicate and important as that, I like lo 
 choose myself the friends who are to 
 give me advice ; and upon this subject 
 
486 
 
 RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 Gentlemen, I shall leave you as enlight- | 
 ened as I found you. 
 
 I give no pledges, I make no intima- 
 tions, one way or the other; and I will 
 be as free, when this day closes, to act 
 as duty calls, as I was when the dawn of 
 this day — (Here Mr. "Webster ^\as inter- 
 rupted by tremendous applause. When 
 silence was restored he continued :) 
 
 There is a delicacy in the case, be- 
 cause there is always delicacy and regret 
 when one feels obliged to differ from his 
 friends; but there is no embarrassment. 
 There is no embarrassment, because, if 
 I see the path of duty before me, I have 
 that within me which will enable me to 
 pursue it, and throw all embarrassment 
 to the winds. A public man has no oc- 
 casion to be embarrassed, if he is honest. 
 Himself and his feelings should be to 
 him as nobody and as uotliing; the in- 
 terest of his country must be to him as 
 every thing; he must sink what is per- 
 sonal to himself, making exertions for 
 his country; and it Ls his ability and 
 readiness to do this which are to mark 
 him as a gi-eat or as a little man in time 
 to come. 
 
 There were many persons in Septem- 
 ber, 1811, who found great fault witli my 
 remaining in the President's Cabinet. 
 You know, Gentlemen, that twenty 
 years of honest, and not altogether im- 
 distinguished service in the AVhig cause, 
 did not save me from an outpouring 
 of wi-ath, which seldom proceeds from 
 "Whig pens and AN'hig tongues against 
 anybody. I am. Gentlemen, a little 
 hard to coax, but as to being driven, 
 that is out of the question. I chose to 
 trust my own judgment, and thinking I 
 was at a post where I was in the service 
 of the country, and could do it good, I 
 stayed there. And I leave it to you to- 
 day to say, I leave it to my country to 
 say, whether the country would have 
 been better off if I had left also. I 
 have no attachment to office. I have 
 tasted of its sweets, but I have tasted of 
 its bitterness. I am content with what 
 I have acliieved; I am more ready to 
 rest .satisfied with wliat is gained, than 
 to run the risk of doubtful efforts for 
 new acquisition. 
 
 I suppose T ought to pause here. (Cnea 
 of "Go on I") I ought, perhaps, to 
 allude to nothing more, and I will not 
 allude to any thing further than it may 
 be supposed to concern myself, directly 
 or by implication. Gentlemen, and ]\Ir. 
 ilayor, a most respectable convention 
 of Whig delegates met in this place a 
 few days since, and passed veiy impor- 
 tant resolutions. There is no set of gen- 
 tlemen in the Commonwealth, so far ar 
 I know tliem, who have more of ray re 
 spect and regard. They are Whigs, but 
 they are no better Whigs than I am. 
 They have served the countiy in tho 
 Whig ranks ; so have I, quite as long a.<i 
 most of them, though perhaps with less 
 ability and success. Their resolutions 
 on political subjects, as representing 
 the Whigs of the State, are entitled 
 to respect, so far as they were author- 
 ized to express opinion on those sub- 
 jects, and no further. They were sent 
 hither, as I supposed, to agree upon can- 
 didates for the offices of Governor and 
 Lieutenant-Governor for the support of 
 the Whigs of Massachusetts ; and if they 
 had any authority to speak in the name 
 of the Whigs of ]Massachusetts to any 
 other purport or intent, I have not been 
 informed of it. I feel very little dis- 
 turbed by any of those proceedings, of 
 whatever nature ; but some of them ap- 
 pear to me to have been inconsiderate 
 and hasty, and their point and bearing 
 can hardly be mistaken. I notice, among 
 others, a declaration made, in behalf of 
 all the Whigs of tliis Commonwealth, of 
 "a full and final separation from the 
 President of the United States." If 
 those gentlemen saw fit to express their 
 own sentiments to that extent, there was 
 no objection. AVhigs speak their senti- 
 ments everywhere; but whether they 
 may assume a privilege to speak for 
 others on a point on which those othera 
 have not given them autliority, is an- 
 other question. I am a AN'hig, I always 
 have been a "\Miig, and I always will be 
 one; and if there are any who would 
 turn me out of the pale of tliat com- 
 munion, let them see who will get out 
 first. I am a Massachusetts AVliig. a 
 Faneuil Hall AVhig, having breathed 
 
RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 487 
 
 this air for five-ancl-tweuty years, and 
 meaning to breatlie it as long as my life 
 is spared. I am ready to submit to all 
 decisions of Whig couveutious on sub- 
 jects on which they are authorized to 
 make decisions ; I know that great party 
 good and great public good can only be 
 so obtained. But it is quite another 
 question whether a set of gentlemen, 
 howevei respectable they may be as in- 
 dividuals, shall have the power to bind 
 me on matters which I have not agreed 
 to submit to their decision at all. 
 
 " A fidl and final separation " is de- 
 clared between the Whig party of ]\Ias- 
 sachusetts and the President. That is 
 the text : it requires a commentary. 
 What does it mean? The President of 
 the United States has three years of his 
 term of oliice yet unexpired. Does this 
 declai-atiou mean, then, that during 
 those three years all the measures of his 
 administration are to be opposed by the 
 great body of the Whig party of Mas- 
 sachusetts, whether they are right or 
 wrong? There are great public inter- 
 ests which require his attention. If the 
 President of the United States should 
 attemjjt, by negotiation, or by earnest 
 and serious application to Congress, to 
 make some change in the present ar- 
 rangements, such as should be of service 
 to those interests of navigation which 
 are concerned in the colonial trade, are 
 the Whigs of Massachusetts to give him 
 ueitiier aid nor succor? If the Presi- 
 dent of the United States shall dii-ect 
 tlie proper department to review the 
 whole commercial policy of the United 
 States, in respect of reciprocity in the 
 indirect trade, to which so much of our 
 tonnage is now sacrificed, if the amend- 
 ment of this policy shall be undertaken 
 by him, is there such a separation be- 
 tween him and the Whigs of JNlassachu- 
 setts as shall lead them and their repre- 
 sentatives to oppose it. Do you know 
 (there are gentlemen now here who do 
 know) tliat alarge proportion, I rather 
 think more than one half, of the carry- 
 ing trade between the empire of Brazil 
 and the United States is enjoyed by ton- 
 nage from the North of Europe, in con- 
 sequence of this ill-considered principle 
 
 with regard to reciprocity, "i ou might 
 just as well admit them into the coasts 
 ing trade. By this arrangement, we 
 take the bread out of om* child/ en's 
 mouths and give it to strangers. I ap- 
 peal to you. Sir, (turning to Captain 
 Benjamin Rich, who sat by him,) is not 
 this true? (i\Ir. Rich at once replied, 
 True !) Is every measure of this sort, 
 for the relief of such abuses, to be re- 
 jected? Are we to suffer ourselves to 
 remain inactive under every grievance 
 of this kind until these three years shall 
 expire, and through as many more as 
 shall pass until Providence shall bless us 
 with more power of doing good than we 
 have now? 
 
 Again, there are now in this State 
 persons employed under government, 
 allowed to be pretty good ^Vhig■s, stiU 
 holding their offices; collectors, district 
 attorneys, postmasters, marshals. What 
 is to become of them in this separation? 
 "Which side are they to fall? Are they 
 to resign? or is this resolution to be 
 held up to government as an invitation 
 or a provocation to tm-n them out? Our 
 distinguished fellow-citizen, who, with 
 so much credit to himself and to his 
 country, represents our government in 
 England,^ — is he expected to come 
 home, on this separation, and yield his 
 place to his predecessor, ^ or to some- 
 body else? And in regard to the indi- 
 vidual who addresses you, — what do 
 his brother AVhigs mean to do with 
 him? AMiere do they mean to place 
 me? Generally, when a divorce takes 
 place, the parties divide their children. 
 I am anxious to know where, in the 
 case of this divorce, I shall fall. This 
 declaration announces a full and fina. 
 separation between the AVhigs of jMas- 
 sachusetts and the President. if I 
 choose to renaain in the President's 
 councils, do these gentlemen mean to 
 say that I cease to be a Massachusetts 
 AMiig? I am quite ready to put that 
 question to the people of Massachu- 
 setts. 
 
 I would not treat this matter too light- 
 ly, nor yet too seriously. I know ver7 
 
 1 Mr. Edward Everett 
 
 2 Mr. Andrew Stevensoa. 
 
48» 
 
 KECKPTIOX AT BOSTON. 
 
 vrell that, when public bodies get to- 
 gether, resolutions can never be con- 
 sidered with any degree of deliberation. 
 They are passed as they are presented. 
 "Who the honorable gentlemen were who 
 drew this resolution I do not know. I 
 suspect that they had not much mean- 
 ing in it, and that they have not vei-y 
 clearly defined what little naeaning they 
 haxl. They were angry; they were re- 
 sentful ; they had drawn up a string of 
 charges against the President, — a bill 
 of mdictmeut, as it were, — and, to 
 close the whole, they introduced this 
 declaration about " a full and final sep- 
 aration." I could not read this, of 
 coui'se, without perceiving that it had 
 an intentional or unintentional bearing 
 on my position ; and therefore it was 
 proper for me to allude to it here. 
 
 Gentlemen, there are some topics on 
 which it has been my fortune to differ 
 from my old fi-iends. They may be 
 right on these topics ; very probably 
 they are ; but I am sure / am right in 
 maintaining my opinions, such as they 
 are, when I have formed them honestly 
 and on deliberation. There seems to 
 me to be a disposition to postpone all 
 attempts to do good to the country to 
 some futm"e and uncertaui day. Yet 
 there is a Whig majority in each house 
 of Congress, and I am of opinion that 
 now is the time to accomplish wliat yet 
 remains to be accomplished. Some gen- 
 tlemen are for suffering the pi-esent 
 Congress to expire; another Congress 
 to be chosen, and to expire also; a 
 third Congress to be chosen, and then, 
 if there shall be a Whig majority in 
 both branches, and a ^Vhig President, 
 they propose to take up highly impor- 
 tant and pressing subjects. These are 
 j^)er2ons, Gentlemen, of more sanguine 
 temperament than myself. " Confi- 
 dence," says Lord Cliatham, " is a 
 plant of slow growth in an old bosom." 
 He referred to confidence in men, but 
 the remark is as true of confidence in 
 predictions of future occurrences. ^lany 
 Uliigs see before us a prospect of more 
 power, and a better chance to serve the 
 country, than we now possess. Far 
 along in the horizon, they discern mild 
 
 skies and halcyon seas, while fogs and 
 darkness and mists blind other sons of 
 humanity from beholding all this bright 
 vision. It was not so that we accom- 
 plished our last great victory, by simply 
 brooding over a glorious Whig future. 
 We succeeded in 1840, but not without 
 an effort; and I know that nothing but 
 union, cordial, sympathetic, fraternal 
 vmion, can prevent the party that 
 achieved that success from renewed 
 prostration. It is not, — I would say 
 it in the presence of the world, — it is 
 not by premature and partial, by pro- 
 scriptive and denmiciatory proceedings, 
 that this great Whig family can ever be 
 kept together, or that ^^'llig counsels 
 can maintain their ascendency. This 
 is perfectly plain and obvious. It was 
 a party, from the first, made up of dif- 
 ferent opinions and principles, of gen- 
 tlemen of every political complexion, 
 uniting to make a change in the admin- 
 istration. They were men of strong 
 State-rights prmciples, men of strong 
 federal principles, men of extreme tar- 
 iff, and men of extreme anti-tariff 
 notions. What could be expected of 
 such a party, unless animated by a 
 spirit of conciliation and hiumony, of 
 miion and sjiupathy? Its true policy 
 was, from the first, and must be, un- 
 less it meditates its own destruction, to 
 heal, and not to widen, the breaches that 
 existed in its ranks. It consented to be- 
 come united in order to save the country 
 from a continuation of a ruinous course 
 of measures. And the lesson taught by 
 the whole history of the revolution of 
 1840 is tlie momentous value of concilia- 
 tion, friendship, sympathy, and union. 
 
 Gentlemen, if 1 understand the mat- 
 ter, there were fom- or five gi-eat objects 
 in that revolution. And, in the first 
 place, one gi-eat object was that of at- 
 tempting to secure permanent peace be- 
 tween this country and England. For 
 although, as I have said, we were not 
 actually at war, we wert subjected to 
 perpetual agitations, which distm-b the 
 interests of tlie country almost as muo"^ 
 as war. They break in upon men's pui- 
 suits, and render them incapable of cal- 
 culating or judging of tlieii" cLducvs of 
 
RECKPTKJN AT liUSTUN. 
 
 489 
 
 L 
 
 success in any prcrposed line or course 
 of bu&iuess. A settled peace %vas one 
 of the objects of that revolution. I am 
 glad if you think this is accomplished. 
 
 The next object of that revolution 
 was an increase of revenue. It was no- 
 torious that, for the several last years, 
 the expenditures for the administration 
 of government had exceedetl the re- 
 ceipts; in other words, governnicut had 
 been running in debt, and in the mean 
 time the operation of the compromise 
 act was still fm'ther and faster dimin- 
 ishing the revenue itself. A sound reve- 
 nue was one of those objects ; and that 
 it has been accomiilished, our thanks 
 and praise are due to the Congress that 
 has just adjourned. 
 
 A third object was protection, protec- 
 tion incidental to revenue, or consequent 
 upon revenue. Xow as to that. Gentle- 
 men, nmch has been done, and I hope 
 it will be found that enough has been 
 done. And for tlas, too, all the Whigs 
 who supported that measure in Congress 
 are entitled to high praise : they receive 
 mine, and I hope they do yours; it is 
 right that they should. But let us be 
 just. The French rhetoricians have a 
 maxim, that there is nothing beautiful 
 that is not true ; I am afraid that some 
 of our jubilant oratory would hardly 
 stand the test of this canon of criticism. 
 It is not true that a majority, composed 
 of AVhigs, could be found, in either 
 house, in favor of the tariff bill. More 
 than thii-ty AVhigs, many of them gen- 
 tlemen of lead and influence, voted 
 against the law, from beginning to end, 
 on all questions, direct and indirect; 
 and it is not pleasant to consider what 
 would have been the state of the coun- 
 try, the treasm-y, and the government 
 itself, at this moment, if the law act- 
 ually passed, for revenue and for pro- 
 tection, had depended on Whig votes 
 alone. After all, it passed the House 
 of Representatives by a smgle vote ; and 
 there is a good deal of eclat about that 
 single vote. But did not every gentle- 
 man who voted for it take the responsi- 
 bility and deserve the honor of that 
 single vote? Several gentlemeu in the 
 opposition thus befriended the bill; thu;s 
 
 did our neighbor from the Middlesex Dis 
 trict of this State, ^ voting for tlie tariff 
 out and out, as steadily as did my hon- 
 ored friend, the member from this city.^ 
 We hear nothing of his " coming to the 
 rescue," and yet he had that one vote, and 
 held tlie tariff in his hand as absolutely 
 as if he had had a presidential veto! 
 And how was it in the Senate? It 
 passed by one vote again tliere, and 
 could not have passed at all without 
 the assistance of the two Senators from 
 Pennsylvania, of Mr. Williams of 
 Maine, and of Mr. Wright of New 
 York. Let us then admit the truth 
 (and a la^vJ'e^ may do that when it 
 helps his case), that it was necessary 
 that a large portion of the other party 
 should come to the assistance of the 
 AVhigs to enable them to carry the tariff, 
 and that, if this assistance had not been 
 rendered, the tariff nmst have failed. 
 
 And this is a very iinportant truth for 
 New England. Iler children, looking 
 to their manufactures and industry for 
 their liveliliood, must rejoice to find the 
 tariff, so necessary to these, no party 
 question. Can they desire, can they 
 wish, that such a great object as the 
 protection of industry shoiUd become a 
 party object, rising with party, and with 
 the failure of the party that supported 
 it going to the grave? This is a public, 
 a national question. The tariff' ought 
 to be inwrought in the sentiments of all 
 jiarties; and although I hope that the 
 pre-eminence of AVhig principles may 
 be eternal, I wish to take bond and se- 
 curity, that we may make the protec- 
 tion of domestic industry more durable 
 even than Whig supremacy. 
 
 Let us be true in another respect 
 This tariff has accomplislied much, and 
 is an honor to the men who passed it. 
 But in regard to protection it has only 
 restored the country to the state in which 
 it was before the compromise act, and 
 from which it fell under the operation 
 of that act. It has repaired the conse- 
 quences of that measure, and it has done 
 no more. I may speak of the compro- 
 mise act. My turn has come now. Xo 
 
 1 Mr. Pannenter. 
 
 2 Mr. li. C. Wiuthrop. 
 
490 
 
 RECEPTION AT BOSTUX. 
 
 measure ever passed Congress during my 
 connection with that body that caused 
 me so much grief and mortification. It 
 was passed by a few friends joining the 
 whob Lrst of the enemy. I have heard 
 ntuch of the motives of that act. The 
 personal motives of those that passed 
 the act were, I doubt not, pure; and all 
 public men are supposed to act from 
 pure motives. But if by motives are 
 meant the objects proposed by the act 
 itself, and expressed in it, then I say, if 
 those be the motives alluded to, they are 
 worse than the act itself. The principle 
 was bad, the measure was bad, the conse- 
 quences were bad. Every circumstance, 
 as well as every line of the act itself, shows 
 that the design was to impose upon legis- 
 lation a restraint that the Constitution 
 had not imposed; to insert in the Con- 
 stitution a new prohibitory clause, pro- 
 viding that, after the year 1842, no rev- 
 enue should be collected except according 
 to an absurd horizontal system, and 
 none exceeding twenty per cent. It was 
 then pressed through under the gi-eat 
 emergency of the public necessities. But 
 I may now recur to what I then said, 
 namely, that its principle was false and 
 dangerous, and that, when its time came, 
 it would rack and convulse our system. 
 I said we should not get rid of it with- 
 out throes and spasms. Has not this 
 been as predicted? We have felt the 
 spasms and throes of tliis convulsion; 
 but we have at last gone through them, 
 and begin to breathe again. It is some- 
 thing that that act is at last got rid of ; 
 and the present tariff is deserving in 
 this, that it is specific and discriminat- 
 ing, that it holds to common sense, and 
 rejects and discards the principles of the 
 comprrmise act, I hope for ever. 
 
 Ar.other great and principal object of 
 the revolution of IblU w;is a restoration 
 of the currency. Our troubles did not 
 begin w ith want of money in the treas- 
 ury', or under the sapping and mining 
 operation of the compromise act. They 
 are of earlier date. The trouble and 
 distress of the country began with the 
 currency in 18;j.'i, and broke out with 
 new severity in 1837. Otlier causes of 
 difficulty have since arisen, but tlie first 
 
 great shock was a shock on tlie cnr- 
 rency; and from the effect of this the 
 country is not yet relieved. I hope the 
 late act may j-ield com^^etent revenue, 
 and am sure it will do much for protec- 
 tion. But until you provide a better 
 currency, so that you may have a uni- 
 versal one, of equal and general value 
 throughout the land, I am hard to be 
 persuaded that we shaU see the day of 
 our former prosperity. Currency, ac- 
 credited currency, and easy and cheap 
 internal exchanges, — until these things 
 be obtained, depend upon it, the coun- 
 try will find no adequate relief. 
 
 And now, fellow-citizens, I will say a 
 word or two on the history of the ti-ans- 
 actions on this subject. At the special 
 session of Congress, the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, Mr. Ewing, arranged a plan 
 for a national bank. That plan was 
 founded upon the idea of a large capital, 
 furnished mainly by private subscrip- 
 tions, and it included branches for local 
 discounts. I need not advert, Gentle- 
 men, to the circumstances under which 
 this scheme was drawn up, and received, 
 as it did, the approbation of the Presi- 
 dent and Cabinet, as the best thing that 
 could be done. I need not remind you, 
 that he whom we had all agi-eed should 
 hold the second place in the government 
 had been called to the head of it. I 
 need not say that he held opinions 
 wholly different from mine on the sub- 
 jects which now came before us. But 
 those opinions were fixed, and therefore 
 it was thought the part of wisdom and 
 prudence not to see how strong a case 
 might be made against the President, 
 but to get along as well as we miglit. 
 With such views, Mr. Ewing presented 
 his plan to Congress. As most i>«rs6ns 
 will remember, the clause allowing t)ie 
 bank to establish branches provided that 
 those branches might be placed in any 
 State which should give its consent. 1 
 have no idea that there is any necessity 
 for such a restriction. I believe Con- 
 gress has the power to establish the 
 branches without, as well as with, the 
 consent of the States. But that clause, 
 at most, was theoretical. I never could 
 find anybody wli 5 could show any prac- 
 
RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 491 
 
 tical mischief resulting from it. Its 
 opponents went upon the theory, wliich 
 I do not exactly accord with, that an 
 omission to exercise a power, in any 
 case, amounts to a surrender of that 
 powder. At any rate, it was the best 
 thing that could be done ; and its rejec- 
 tion was the commencement of the dis- 
 astrous dissensions between the Presi- 
 dent and Congress. 
 
 Gentlemen, it was exceedingly doubt- 
 ful at the time when that plan was 
 prepared whether the capital would be 
 subscribed. But we did what we could 
 about it. We asked the opinion of the 
 leading merchants of the principal com- 
 mercial cities. They were invited to 
 "Washington to confer with us. They 
 expressed doubts whether the bank could 
 be put into operation, but they expressed 
 hopes also, and they pledged themselves 
 to do the best they could to advance it. 
 And as the commercial interests were in 
 its favor, as the administration was new 
 and fresh and popular, and the people 
 were desirous to have something done, 
 a great earnestness was felt that that 
 bill should be tried. 
 
 It was sent to the Senate at the Sen- 
 ate's retjuest, and by tlie Senate it was 
 rejected. Another bill was reported in 
 the Senate, without the provision requir- 
 ing the consent of the States to branches, 
 was discussed for six weeks or two 
 months, and then could not pass even a 
 Whig Seaiate. Here was the origin of 
 distrust, disunion, and resentment. 
 
 I will not pursue the unhappy narra- 
 tive of tlie latter part of the session of 
 1841. ]\Ien had begun to grow excited 
 and angry and resentful. 1 expressed 
 the opinion, at an eai"ly period, to all 
 those to whom I was entitled to speak, 
 that it would be a great deal better to 
 forbear further action at present. That 
 opinion, as expressed to the two AMiig 
 Senators from Massachusetts, is before 
 the public. I wished Congress to give 
 time for consultation to take place, for 
 harmony to be restored ; because I looked 
 for no good, except from the united and 
 harmonious action of all the branches 
 of the Whig government. I suppose 
 that counsel was not good, certainly it 
 
 was not followed. I need not add the 
 comment. 
 
 This brings us, as far as concerns the 
 questions of currency, to the last session 
 of Congress. Early in that session the 
 Secretary of the Treasury sent in a plan 
 of an exchequer. It met with little 
 favor in either House, and therefore it 
 is necessary for me, Gentlemen, lest the 
 A\ hole burden fall on others, to say that 
 it had my hearty, sincere, and entii-e 
 approbation. Gentlemen, I hope that I 
 have not manifested through my public 
 life a very overweening conhdence in my 
 own judgment, or a very unreasonable 
 unwillingness to accept the views of 
 others. But there are some subjects on 
 which I feel entitled to pay some respect 
 to my own opinion. The subject of cu."- 
 rency, Gentlemen, has been the study of 
 my life. Thirty years ago, a little be- 
 fore my entrance into the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, the questions connected 
 with a mixed currency, involving the 
 proper relation of paper to specie, and 
 the proper means of restricting an ex- 
 cessive issue of paper, came to be dis- 
 cussed by the most acute and well-disci- 
 plined understandings in England in 
 Parliament. At that time, during tlie 
 suspension of specie payments by the 
 bank, when paper was fifteen per cent 
 below par, Mr. Vansittart had presented 
 his celebrated resolution, declaring that 
 a bank-note was stiU worth the value 
 expressed on its face; that the bank 
 note had not depreciated, but that the 
 price of bullion had risen. Lord Liver- 
 pool and Lord Castlereagh espoused this 
 view, as we know, and it was opposed 
 by the close reasoning of Iluskisson, the 
 powerful logic of Horner, and the prac- 
 tical sagacity and common sense of Al- 
 exander Baring, now Lord Ashl urton 
 The study of those debates made me u 
 bullionist. They convinced me that 
 paper could not circulate safely in any 
 comitry, any longer than it was imme- 
 diately redeemable at the place of its 
 issue. Coming into Congress the very 
 next year, or the next but oi*3 after, and 
 finding the finances of the country in a 
 most deplorable condition, I tlien and 
 ever after devoted myself, in preffreiuie 
 
492 
 
 RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 to all other public topics, to the consid- 
 erutiou of the questions relating to tliein. 
 I believe I have read every thing of 
 value that has been published since on 
 those questions, on either side of the 
 Atlantic. I have studied by close obser- 
 vation the laws of paper currency, as 
 they have exhibited themselve? in this 
 and in other countries, from 1811 down 
 to the present time. I have expressed 
 my opinions at various tunes in Con- 
 gi"ess, and some of the predictions which 
 I have made have not been altogether 
 falsified by subsequent events. I must 
 therefore be permitted, Gentlemen, with- 
 out yielding to any flippant newsjiaper 
 paragraph, or to the iiasty ebullitions of 
 debate in a public assembly, to say, that 
 I believe the plan for an exchequer, as 
 presented to Congress at its last session, 
 is the best measure, the onli/ measure 
 for the adoption of Congress and the 
 trial of the })eople. I am ready to stake 
 my reputation upon it, and that is all 
 tliat I have to stake. I am ready to 
 stake my reputation, that, if this Whig 
 Congress will take that measure and 
 give it a fair trial, within three years it 
 win be admitted by the whole American 
 peojile to be the most beneficial measure 
 of any sort ever adopted in this country, 
 the Constitution only excepted. 
 
 I mean that tln-y should take it as it 
 was when it came from the Cabinet, not 
 as it looked when the conunittees of 
 Congress had laid their hands upon it. 
 For when the committees of Congress 
 had struck out the proviso respecting 
 exchange, it was not worth a rush; it 
 was not worth the parchment it would 
 be engrossed upon. The great desire of 
 this country is a general currency, a 
 facility of exchange; a currency which 
 shall be the same for you and for the 
 peoi)le of Alabama and Louisiana, and 
 a system of exchange which shall equal- 
 ize credit between them and you, with 
 the rapidity and facility with which 
 Bteam conveys men and merchandise. 
 That is what the country wants, what 
 you want; and you have not got it. 
 You have not got it, you cannot get it, 
 but by some adequate provision of gov- 
 ernment. Exchange, ready exchange, 
 
 that will enable a man to turn his New 
 Orleans means into money to-day, (aa 
 we have had in better times millions a 
 year exchanged, at only three quarl,2r.s 
 of one per cent,) is what is wanted. 
 How are we to obtain this? A Bank 
 of the United States founded on a pri- 
 vate subscription is out of the question. 
 That is an obsolete idea. The country 
 and the condition of things have changed. 
 Suppose that a bank were chartered w ith 
 a capital of fifty millions, to be raised 
 by private subscription. AVould it not 
 be out of all possibility to find the 
 money? Who would subscribe? What 
 would you get for shares? And as for 
 the local discount, do you wish it? Do 
 you, in State Street, wish that the na- 
 tion should send millions of untaxed 
 banking capital hither to increase your 
 discounts? What, then, shall we do? 
 People w^ho are waiting for power to 
 make a Bank of the United States may 
 as well postpone all attempts to benefit 
 the country to the incoming of the 
 Jews. 
 
 What, then, shall we do? Let us 
 turn to this plan of the exchequer, 
 brought forward last year. It was as 
 sailed from all quarters. One gentle- 
 man did say, I believe, that by some 
 possibility some good might come out of 
 it, but in general it met with a different 
 opposition from every different class. 
 Some said it would be a perfectly life- 
 less machine, — that it was uo system 
 at all, — that it would do nothing, for 
 good or evil; others thought tiiat it had 
 a great deal too much vitality, admit- 
 ting that it would answer the purjwse 
 perfectly well for which it was designed, 
 but fearing that it would increase the 
 executive power: thus making it at once 
 King Log and King Serpent. One party 
 called it a ridiculous imbecility; the 
 other, a dangerous giant, that might 
 subvert the Coll^:tituti(>n. Tliese varied 
 arguments, contradicting, if not refut- 
 ing, one another, convinced rne of one 
 tiling at least, — that the bill would not 
 be adopted, nor even temperately and 
 candidly considered. And it w;\s not. 
 In a manner quite unusual, it was dis- 
 cussed, assailetl, denounced, before it 
 
RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 493 
 
 was allowed to take the course of refer- 
 ence and examination. 
 
 The difficulties we meet in carrying 
 out our system of constitutional govern- 
 ment are indeed extraordinary. The 
 Constitution was intended as an instru- 
 ment of great political good; but we 
 Bometimes so dispute its meaning, that 
 we cannot use it at all. One man will 
 not have i\ bank, without the power of 
 local discount, against the consent of 
 the States; for that, he insists, would 
 break the Constitution. Another will 
 not have a bank with such a power, lie- 
 cause he til inks that would break the 
 Constitution. A third will not have an 
 exchequer, with authority to deal in 
 exchanges, because that would increase 
 executive influence, and so might break 
 the Constitution. And between them 
 all, we are like the boatman who, in the 
 midst of rocks and currents and whirl- 
 pools, will not pull one stroke for safety, 
 lest he break his oar. Are we now look- 
 ing for the time when we can charter a 
 United States Bank with a large private 
 subscription? When will that be? When 
 confidence is restored. Are we, then, 
 to do nothing to save the vessel from 
 sinking, till the chances of the winds and 
 waves have landed us on the shore? 
 He is more sanguine than I am, who 
 thinks that the time will soon come 
 when the Whigs have more power to 
 work effectually for the good of the 
 country than they now have. The voice 
 of patriotism calls upon them not to 
 postpone, but to act at this moment, at 
 tlie very next session ; to make the best 
 of their means, and to try. You say 
 that the administration is responsible; 
 why not, then, try the plan it lias rec- 
 ommended. If it fails, let the President 
 bear the responsibility. If you will not 
 try this plan, why not propose some- 
 thing else? 
 
 Gentlemen, in speaking of events that 
 have happened, I ought to say, and will, 
 since I am making a full and free com- 
 munication, that there is no one of my 
 tge, and I am no longer very young, 
 who has written or spoken more against 
 the abuse and indiscreet use of the veto 
 power than I have. And there is no 
 
 one whose opinions upon this subject 
 are less changed. I presume it is uni- 
 versally known, that I have advised 
 against the use of the veto power on 
 every occasion when it has been used 
 since I have been in the Cabinet. But 
 I am, nevertheless, not willing to join 
 those who seem more desirous to make 
 out a case against the Presidect, than 
 of serving their country to the exti^nt 
 of thei- ability, vetoes notwithstanding. 
 Indeed, at the close of the extra session, 
 the received doctrine of many seemed to 
 be, that they would undertake nothing 
 until they could amend the Constitution 
 so as to do away with this power. This 
 was mere mockery. If we were now 
 reforming the Constitution, we might 
 wish for some, I do not say what, guards 
 and restraints upon this power more 
 than the Constitution at present con- 
 tains; but no convention would recom- 
 mend striking it out altogether. Have 
 not the people of New York lately 
 amended their constitution, so as to re- 
 quire, in certain legislative action, votes 
 of two thirds? and is not this same re- 
 striction in daily use in the national 
 House of Representatives itself, in the 
 case of suspension of the rules? This 
 constitutional power, therefore, is no 
 greater a restraint than this body im- 
 poses on itself. But it is utterly hope- 
 less to look for such an amendment; 
 who expects to live to see its day? And 
 to give up all practical efforts, and to go 
 on with a general idea that the Consti- 
 tution must be amended before any 
 thing can be done, was, I will not say 
 trifling, but treating the great necessities 
 of the people as of quite too little impor- 
 tance. This Congress accomplished, in 
 this regard, nothing for the people. The 
 exchequer plan which was submitted to 
 it will accomplish some of the objects of 
 the people, and especially the Whig peo- 
 ple. I am confident of it; I know it. 
 When a mechanic makes a tool, an axe, 
 a saw, or a plane, and knows tliat the 
 temper is good and the parts are well 
 proportioned, he knows that it will an- 
 swer its purpose. And 1 know that this 
 plan will answer its purpose. 
 
 There are other objects which ought 
 
494 
 
 RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 not to be neglected, among which is one 
 of sucli importance that I will not now 
 pass it by; I mean, the mortifying state 
 of the public credit of this country at 
 this time. I cannot help thinking, that 
 if the statesmen of a fomier age were 
 among us, if Washington were here, if 
 John Adams, and Hamilton, and Madi- 
 son were here, they would be deeply 
 concerned and soberly thoughtful about 
 the present state of the public credit of 
 the country. In the position I fill, it 
 becomes my duty to read, generally with 
 pleasure, but sometimes with pain, com- 
 munications from our public agents 
 abroad. It is distressing to hear them 
 speak of their distress at what they see 
 and hear of the scorn and contumely 
 with which the American character and 
 American credit are treated abroad. 
 "Why, at this very time, we have a loan 
 in the market, which, at the present 
 rate of money and credit, ought to com- 
 mand in Europe one hundred and twen- 
 ty-five per cent. Can we sell a dollar 
 of it? And how is it with the credit of 
 our own Commonwealth? Does it not 
 find itself affected in its credit by the 
 general state of the credit of the coun- 
 try ? Is there nobody ready to make a 
 movement in this matter ? Is there not 
 a man in our councils large enough, 
 comprehensive enough in his views, to 
 undertake at least to present this case 
 before the American people, and thus 
 do something to restore the public char- 
 acter for morals and honesty? 
 
 There are in the countiy some men 
 who are indiscreet enough to talk of 
 repudiation, — to advise their fellow- 
 citizens to repudiate public debt. Does 
 repudiation pay a debt? Does it dis- 
 charge the debtor? Can it so modify a 
 debt that it shall not be always binding, 
 in law as well as in morals? No, Gen- 
 Uemeu ; repudiation does nothing but 
 add a sort of disrepute to acknowledged 
 inability. It is our duty, so far as is in 
 our power, to rouse the public feeling 
 on the subject; to maintain and assert 
 the universal principles of law and jus- 
 tice, and the importance of preserving 
 public faith and credit. People say 
 lliat the intelligent capitalists of Europe 
 
 ought to distinguish between the United 
 States government and the State gov 
 ernments. So they ought ; but. Gen- 
 tlemen, what does all this amount to? 
 Does not the general government com^ 
 prise the same people who make up the 
 State governments? May not these 
 Europeans ask us how long it may be 
 before the national councils will repudi- 
 ate public obligations ? 
 
 The doctrine of repudiation has in- 
 flicted upon us a stain which we ought 
 to feel worse than a wound; and the 
 time has come when every man ought to 
 address himself soberly and seriously to 
 the correction of this great existing evil. 
 I do not undertake to say what the Con- 
 stitution allows Congress to do in the 
 premises. I will only say, that if that 
 great fund of the public domain prop- 
 erly and in equity belongs, as is main- 
 tained, to the States themselves, there 
 are some means, by regular and consti- 
 tutional laws, to enable and induce the 
 States to save their own credit and the 
 credit of the country. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have detained you much 
 too long. I have wished to say, that, 
 in my judgment, there remain certain 
 important objects to engage our public 
 and private attention, in the national 
 affairs of the country. These are, the 
 settlement of the remaining questions 
 between ourselves and England; the 
 great questions relating to tlie reciproci- 
 ty principle; those relating to colonial 
 trade; the most absorbing questions of 
 the currency, and those relating to th^ 
 great subject of the restoration of the 
 national character and the public faith; 
 these are all objects to which I am will- 
 ing to devote myself, both in public and in 
 private life. I do not expect that much 
 of public service remains to be done by 
 me; but I am ready, for the promotion 
 of these objects, to act with sober men 
 of any party, and of all parties. I am 
 ready to act with mi'u who are free from 
 that great danger that surrounds all men 
 of all parties, — the danger that patriot- 
 ism itself, warmed and heated iu party 
 contests, will run into partisanship. I 
 believe that, among the sober iren of 
 this country, there is a growing desire 
 
RECEPTION AT BOSTON. 
 
 49o 
 
 for more moderation of party feeling, 
 more predominance of purely public 
 considerations, more honest and general 
 union of well-meaning men of all sides 
 to uphold the institutions of the country 
 and carry them forwaid 
 
 In the pursuit of these objects, in 
 public life or in a private station, I am 
 willing to perform the part assigned to 
 me, and to give tliem, with hearty good- 
 will and zealous effort, all that may r<» 
 main to me of strength and life. 
 
THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 
 
 k SPEECH DELITERED ON THE 22d OF DECEMRER, 1843, AT TIIE PmLIC 
 DINNER OF TIIE NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, IN COMMEMO- 
 RATION OF THE LANDING OF THE PILGRIMS. 
 
 [The great Pilgrim festival was cele- 
 brated on the 22(1 of December, 1843, by the 
 New England Society of New Y'ork, with 
 uncommon spirit and success. A commera- 
 orative oration was delivered in the morn- 
 ing by Hon. Kufus Choate, in a style of 
 eloquence rarely equalled. The public 
 dinner of the Society, at the Astor House, 
 at which M. IL Grinnell, Esq. presided, 
 was attended by a very large company', 
 composed of the members of the Society 
 and their invited guests. Several appro- 
 priate toasts having been given and re- 
 sponded to by the distinguished individuals 
 present, George Griswold, Esq. rose to 
 offer one in honor of Mr. Webster. After 
 a few remarks complimentary to that gen- 
 tleman, in reference to his services in refut- 
 ing the doctrine of nullification and in 
 averting the danger of war by the treaty 
 of Wasiiington, Mr. Griswold gave the 
 following toast : — 
 
 "Daniel Webster, — the gift of New 
 England to his country, his whole country, 
 and nothing but his country." 
 
 This was received with great applause, 
 and on rising to respond to it Mr. Webster 
 was greeted with nine enthusiastic cheers, 
 and the most hearty and prolonged ai)pro- 
 bation. Wiien silence was restored, he 
 spoke as follows.] 
 
 Mr. President: — I have a grate- 
 ful duty to perform in acknowledginij 
 the kindness of the sentiment thus ex- 
 pressed towards me. And yet I must 
 say, Gentlemen, that I rise upon this 
 occasion under a consciousness that I 
 may probably disappoint highly raised, 
 too highly raised expectations. lu tlie 
 scenes of this evening, and in the scene of 
 this day, my part is an luinible one. I can 
 
 enter into no competition with the fresher 
 geniuses of those more eloquent gentle- 
 men, learned and reverend, who have 
 addressed this Society. I may perform, 
 however, the humbler, but sometimes 
 u.seful, duty of contrast, by adding the 
 dark ground of the picture, which shall 
 serve to bring out the more brilliant 
 colors. 
 
 I mu.st receive. Gentlemen, the senti- 
 ment proposed by the wortliy and dis- 
 tinguished citizen of New York before 
 me, as intended to convey the idea that, 
 as a citizen of New England, as a son, 
 a child, a creation of New England, 1 
 may be yet supposed to entertain, in 
 some degree, that enlarged view of my 
 duty as a citizen of the United States 
 and as a public man, which may, in 
 some small measure, commend nie to the 
 regard of the whole country. While I 
 am free to confess. Gentlemen, that 
 there is no compliment of which I am 
 more desirous to be thought wortliy, I 
 will add, that a compliment of that kind 
 could have proceeded from no source 
 more aij^reeable to my own feelings than 
 from the gentleman who h;vs proposed 
 it, — an eminent merchant, the member 
 of a body of eminent merchants, known 
 throughout the world for their intelli- 
 gence and enterprise. I the more espe- 
 cially feel this, Gentlemen, because, 
 whether I view the present state of 
 things or recur to the history of the past, 
 
THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTn. 
 
 497 
 
 I cai» in ueither case be ignorant how 
 much that profession, and its distin- 
 guished members, from an early day 
 of our history, have contributed to make 
 the country wliat it is, and the govern- 
 ment what it is. 
 
 Gentlemen, the free nature of our 
 institutions, and the popular form of 
 those governments which have come 
 down to us from the Rock of Plymouth, 
 give scope to intelligence, to talent, en- 
 terprise, and public spirit, from all 
 classes making up the great body of the 
 community. And the country has re- 
 ceived benefit in all its history and in all 
 its exigencies, of the most eminent and 
 striking character, from persons of the 
 class to which my friend before me be- 
 longs. Who will ever forget that the 
 first name signed to our ever-memorable 
 and ever-glorious Declaration of Lide- 
 pendence is the name of John Hancock, 
 a merchant of Boston? Who will ever 
 forget that, in the most disastrous days 
 of the Revolution, when the treasury of 
 the country was bankrupt, with unpaid 
 navies and starving armies, it was a mer- 
 chant, — Robert Morris of Philadelphia, 
 — who, by a noble sacrifice of his own 
 fortune, as well as by the exercise of his 
 great financial abilities, sustained and 
 supported the wise men of the country in 
 council, and the brave men of the coun- 
 tiy in the field of battle? Xor are there 
 wanting more recent instances. I have 
 the pleasure to see near me, and near 
 my friend who proposed this sentiment, 
 the son of an eminent merchant of Xew 
 England (Mr. Goodhue), an early mem- 
 ber of the Senate of the United States, 
 always consulted, always respected, in 
 whatever belonged to the duty and the 
 means of putting in operation the finan- 
 cial and commercial system of the coun- 
 try; and this mention of the father of 
 my friend brings to my mind the mem- 
 ory of his great colleague, the early 
 associate of Hamilton and of Ames, 
 trusted and beloved by Washington, 
 consulted on all occasions connected with 
 the administration of the finances, the 
 establishment of the treasuiy depart- 
 ment, the imposition of the first rates 
 of duty, and with every thing that 
 
 belonged to the commercial system of 
 the United States, — George Cabot, of 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 I will take this occasion to say. Gen- 
 tlemen, that there is no truth better 
 developed and established in the history 
 of the United States, from the forma- 
 tion of the Constitution to the present 
 time, than this, — that the mercantile 
 classes, the great commercial masses ol 
 the countiy, whose affairs connect them 
 strongly with every State in the Union 
 and with all the nations of the earth, 
 whose business and profession give a 
 sort of nationality to their character, — 
 that no class of men among us, from the 
 beginning, have shown a stronger and 
 firmer devotion to whatsoever has been 
 designed, or to whatever has tended, to 
 preserve the union of these States and 
 the stability of the free government un- 
 der which we live. The Constitution of 
 the United States, in regard to the vari- 
 ous municipal regulations and local in- 
 terests, has left the States individual, 
 disconnected, isolated. It has left them 
 their own codes of criminal law; it has 
 left them their own system of municipal 
 regulations. But there was one great 
 interest, one great concern, which, from 
 the very nature of the case, was no 
 longer to be left imder the regulations 
 of the then thirteen, afterwards twenty, 
 and now twenty-six States, but was com- 
 mitted, necessarily committed, to the 
 care, the protection, and the regulation 
 of one government; and this was that 
 great unit, as it has been called, the 
 commerce of the United States. There 
 is no commerce of Xew York, no com- 
 merce of Massachusetts, none of Georgia, 
 none of Alabama or Louisiana. All and 
 singular, in the aggregate and in all its 
 parts, is the commerce of the United 
 States, regulated at home by a uniform 
 system of laws \mder the authority of 
 the general government, and protected 
 abroad under the flag of our govern- 
 ment, the glorious E Plurihus Unum, 
 and guarded, if need be, by the power 
 of the general government all over the 
 world. There is, therefore. Gentlemen, 
 nothing more cementing, nothing that 
 makes us more cohesive, nothing that 
 
 82 
 
49S 
 
 THE LANDING AT TLYMOUTH. 
 
 more re^^iels all tendencies to separation 
 and dismemberment, than this great, 
 this common, I may say this overwhelm- 
 ing interest of one commence, one gen- 
 eral system of trade and navigation, one 
 evervAvhere and with evejy nation of the 
 globe. There is no flag of any partic- 
 ular American State seen in the Pacific 
 sea-s, or in the Baltic, or in the Indian 
 Ocean. Who knows, or who hears, 
 there of your proud State, or of my 
 l^r^ud State? "Who knows, or who hears, 
 of any thing, at the extremest north or 
 south, or at the antipodes, — in the re- 
 motest regions of the Eastern or West- 
 ern Sea, — who ever hears, or knows, of 
 any tiling but an American ship, or of 
 any American enterprise of a commercial 
 character that does not bear the impres- 
 sion of the American Union with it? 
 
 It would be a presumption of which 
 I cannot be guilty, Gentlemen, for me 
 to imagine for a moment, that, among 
 the gifts which Xew England has made 
 to our common country, I am any thing 
 more than one of the most inconsidera- 
 ble. I readily bring to mind the great 
 men, not only with whom I have met, 
 but those of the generation before me, 
 who now sleep witli'their fathers, distin- 
 guished in the Revolution, distinguished 
 in the formation of the Constitution and 
 in the early administration of the gov- 
 ernment, always and everj-^vhere dis- 
 tinguished ; and I shrink in just and 
 conscious humiliation before their es- 
 tablished character and established re- 
 nowii; and all that I venture to say, 
 and all that I venture to hope may 
 be thought true, in the sentiment pro- 
 posed, is, that, so far as mind and 
 purpose, so far as intention and will, 
 are concerned, I may be found among 
 those who are capable of embracing the 
 whole country of which they are mem- 
 bers in a proper, comprehensive, and 
 patriotic regard. We all know that the 
 objects which are nearest are the objects 
 which are dearest ; family affections, 
 neighborhood affections, social rela- 
 tions, these in truth are nearest and 
 dearest to us all ; but whosoever shall 
 be able rightly to adjust the gradu- 
 ation of his ".iftections, and to love his 
 
 friends and his neighbors, and his coun- 
 try, as he ought to love them, merits the 
 commendation pronounced by the philo- 
 sophic poet upon him 
 
 "Qui didicit patriiE qrid debeat, et quid 
 aniicis." 
 
 Gentlemen, it has been my fortune, 
 in the little part which I have acted in 
 public life, for good or for evil to the 
 community, to be connected entirely 
 with that government which, within the 
 limits of constitutional power, cx'-'rcisea 
 jurisdiction over all the States and all 
 the people. ]My friend at the end of the 
 table on my left has spoken pleasantly 
 to us to-night of the reputed miracles 
 of tutelar saints. In a sober sense, in a 
 sense of deep conviction, I say that the 
 emergence of this countrv from British 
 domination, and its union under its 
 present form of government beneath 
 the general Constitution of the coiui- 
 try, if not a miracle, is, I do not say 
 the most, but one of the most fortu- 
 nate, the most admirable, the most aus- 
 picious occurrences, which have ever 
 fallen to the lot of man. Circumstances 
 have wrought out for us a state of things 
 which, in other times and other regions, 
 philosophy has dreamed of, and theory 
 has proposed, and speculation has sug- 
 gested, but which man has never been 
 able to accomplish. I mean the govern- 
 ment of a great nation over a vastly 
 extended portion of the sm-face of the 
 earth, hj means of local inatitufions for 
 local purposes, and general instiliitions for 
 general purposes. I know of nothing in 
 the history of the world, notwithstand- 
 ing the gi-eat league of Grecian states, 
 notwithstanding the success of the Ro- 
 man system, (and certainly there is no 
 exception to the remark in modern his- 
 tory,) — I know of nothing so suitable 
 on the whole for the great interests of a 
 great people spread over a large ix)rtion 
 of the globe, as the provision of local 
 legislation for local and municipal pur- 
 poses, with, not a confederacy, nor a loose 
 binding together of separate part.-*, but 
 a limited, positive general government 
 for positive general pui-poses, over the 
 whole. We may derive eminent proofs 
 of this trutli from the past and the pres- 
 
THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 
 
 41)9 
 
 9nt. What see vre to-day in the agita- 
 tions on the other side of the Atlantic? 
 J speak of them, of course, witliout ex- 
 firessing any opinion on questions of 
 politics in a foreign country ; but I 
 speak of them as an occurrence winch 
 shows the great expediency, the utility, 
 I may say the necessity, of local legis- 
 lation. K, in a country on the other 
 Liide of the water (Ireland), there be 
 some who desire a severance of one part 
 of the empire from another, under a 
 proposition of repeal, there are others 
 who propose a continuance of the ex- 
 isting relation under a federative sys- 
 tem: and what is this? No more, and 
 no less, than an approximation to that 
 system under which we live, which for 
 local, municipal purposes shall have a 
 local legislature, and for general pur- 
 poses a general legislature. 
 
 This becomes the more important 
 when we consider that the United States 
 (Stretch over so many degrees of latitude, 
 — that they embrace such a variety of 
 climate, — that various conditions and 
 relations of society naturally call for dif- 
 ferent laws and regulations. Let me ask 
 whether the legislature of New York 
 could wisely pass laws for the govern- 
 ment of Louisiana, or whether the legis- 
 lature of Louisiana could wisely pass 
 laws for Pennsylvania or New York? 
 Everybody will say, "No." And yet 
 the interests of New York and Pennsyl- 
 vania and Louisiana, in whatever con- 
 cerns their relations between themselves 
 and their general relations with all the 
 states of the world, are found to be per- 
 fectly well provided for, and adjusted 
 with perfect congruity, by committing 
 these general interests to one common 
 government, the result of popular gen- 
 eral elections among them all. 
 
 I confess. Gentlemen, that having 
 been, as I have said, in my humble 
 career in public life, employed in that 
 portion of the public service which is 
 connected with the general government, 
 I have contemplated, as the great ob- 
 ject of every proceeding, not only the 
 particular benefit of the moment, or the 
 exigency of the occasion, but the preser- 
 vation of this system ; for I do consider 
 
 it so much the result of circunustancos, 
 and that so much of it is due to for- 
 tunate concurrence, as well as to the 
 sagacity of the gi-eat men acting ujion 
 those occasions, — that it is an experi- 
 ment of such remarkable and renowned 
 success, — that he is a fool or a mad- 
 man who would wish to try that exjjeri 
 ment a second time. I see to-day, and we 
 all see, that the descendants of the Puri- 
 tans who landed upon the Rock of I'ly- 
 mouth; the followers of Raleigh, who 
 settled Virginia and North Carolina; he 
 who lives where the truncheon of em- 
 pire, so to speak, was borne by Smith) 
 the inhabitants of Georgia ; he who set- 
 tled under the auspices of France at the 
 mouth of the Mississippi; the Swede on 
 the Delaware, the Quaker of Pennsyl- 
 vania, — all find, at this daj', their com 
 mon interest, their common protection, 
 their common glory, under the united 
 government, which leaves them all, 
 nevertheless, in the administration of 
 their own municipal and local affairs, 
 to be Frenchmen, or Swedes, or Quak- 
 ers, or whatever they choose. And when 
 one considers that this system of gov- 
 ernment, I will not say has produced, 
 because God and nature and circum- 
 stances have had an agency in it, — but 
 when it is considered that this system 
 has not prevented, but has rather en- 
 couraged, the growth of the peojile of 
 this country from three millions, on the 
 glorious 4th of July, 1776, to seventeen 
 millions now, who is there that will say, 
 upon this hemisphere, — nay, who is 
 there that will stand up in any hemi- 
 sphere, who is there in any part of the 
 world, that will say that the great ex- 
 periment of a united republic has failed 
 in America? And yet I know. Gentle- 
 men, I feel, that this united system is 
 held together by strong tendencies to 
 union, at the same time that it is kej)t 
 from too nmch leaning toward consoli- 
 dation by a strong tendency in the sev- 
 eral States to sujiport each its own 
 power and considerati^yn. In the physi- 
 cal world it is said, that 
 
 "All nature's difference keeps all nature's 
 peace," 
 
 and there is in the political world this 
 
500 
 
 THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 
 
 same harmonious difference, this regu- 
 lar J 'lay of the positive and negative 
 powers, (if I may so say,) which, at 
 least for one glorious half-ceutui-y, has 
 kept us as we have been kopt, and made 
 us what we are. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, I must not allow my- 
 self to pursue this topic. It is a senti- 
 ment so commonly repeated by me upon 
 all public occasions, and upon all pri- 
 vate occasions, and everywhere, that I 
 forbear to dwell upon it now. It is the 
 union of these States, it is the system 
 of government mider which we live, be- 
 neath the Constitution of the United 
 States, happily framed, wisely adopted, 
 successfully administered for fifty years, 
 — it is mainly this, 1 say, that gives us 
 power at home and ci'edit abroad. And, 
 for one, I never stop to consider the 
 power or wealth or greatness of a State. 
 I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I care nothing 
 for your Empire State as such. Dela- 
 ware and Rhode Island are as high in 
 my regard as Xew York. In popula- 
 tion, in power, in the government over 
 us, you have a greater share. Y'ou 
 would have the same share if you were 
 divided into forty States. It is not, 
 therefore, as a State sovereignty, it is 
 only because New I'ork is a vast por- 
 tion of the whole American people, that 
 I regard this State, as I always shall 
 regard her, as respectable and honora- 
 ble. But among State sovereignties 
 there is no preference ; there is nothing 
 high and nothing low; every State is 
 independent and every State is equal. 
 If we depart from this great principle, 
 then are we no longer one people ; but 
 we are thrown back again upon the Con- 
 federation, and nY>on that state of tilings 
 in which the inequality of the States 
 produced all the evils which bctVll us in 
 times ])ast, and a thousand ill-adjusted 
 and jarring intei'ests. 
 
 ]\lr. President, I wish, then, without 
 pursuing these thougiits, without espe- 
 cially attempting to i)roduce any fervid 
 impression by dwelling upon them, to 
 take tliis occasion to answer u\y friend 
 who has proposed the sentiment, and to 
 respond to it by saying, that whoever 
 would serve his country in this our day, 
 
 with whatever degree of talent, great oi 
 small, it may have pleased the Almighty 
 Power to give him, he cannot serve it, 
 he will not serve it, unless he be able, 
 at least, to extend his political designs, 
 purposes, and objects, till they shall 
 comprehend the whole country of which 
 he is a servant. 
 
 Sir, I must say a word in connection 
 with that event which we have assem- 
 bled to commemorate. It has seemed 
 fit to the dwellers in New York, New- 
 Englanders by birth or descent, to form 
 Uiis societj'. They have formed it for 
 the relief of the poor and distressed, 
 and for the purpose of commemorating 
 annually the great event of the settle- 
 ment of the country from which they 
 spring. It would be great presumption 
 in me to go back to the scene of that 
 settlement, or to attempt to exhibit it 
 in any colors, after the exhibition made 
 to-day; yet it is an event that in all 
 time since, and in all time to come, 
 and more in times to come than in 
 times past, must stand out in gi-eat 
 and striking characteristics to the ad- 
 miration of the world. The sun's re- 
 turn to his winter solstice, in 1G20, is 
 the epoch from which he dates his first 
 acquaintance with the small j^eople, now 
 one of the happiest, and destined to be 
 one of the greatest, that his rays fall 
 upon; and his annual visitation, from 
 that day to this, to our frozen region, 
 has enabled him to see that progress, 
 prof/ress, was the characteristic of that 
 small people. lie has seen them from a 
 handful, that one of his beams coming 
 through a key-hole might illuminate, 
 spread over a hemisphere which he can- 
 not enlighten under the sliglite,st eclipse. 
 Nor, though this globe should revolve 
 round him for tens of hundreds of thou- 
 sands of years, will he see such another 
 incipient colonization upon any part of 
 this attendant upon his mighty orb. 
 A\ hat else he may see in those other 
 planets wliicli revolve around him we 
 cannot t«ll, at least until we have tried 
 the fifty-foot telescope which Lord Ilosse 
 is preiKirnig lor that purpose. 
 
 There is not, Gentlemen, and we may 
 as well admit it. in any history of the 
 
 i 
 
THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 
 
 501 
 
 past, another epoch from which so many 
 great events have taken a turn ; events 
 which, while important to us, are equally 
 imjwrtant to the country from whence 
 we came. The settlement of Plymouth 
 — concurring, T always wish to be un- 
 derstood, with that of Virginia — was the 
 settlement of New England by colonies 
 of Old England. Now, Gentlemen, take 
 these two ideas and run out the thoughts 
 suggested by both. What has been, and 
 what is to be, Old England ? What has 
 been, what is, and what may be, in the 
 providence of God, New England, with 
 her neighbors and associates ? I would 
 not dwell, Gentlemen, with any particu- 
 lar emphasis upon the sentiment, which 
 I nevertheless entertain, with respect to 
 tlie great diversity in the races of men. 
 I do not know how far in that respect I 
 might not encroach on those mysteries 
 of Providence which, while I adore, I 
 may not comprehend ; but it does seem 
 to me to be very remarkable, that we 
 may go back to the time when New 
 England, or those wlio founded it, were 
 suhtracltd from Old England ; and both 
 Old England and New England went 
 on, nevertheless, in their mighty career 
 of progress and power. 
 
 Let me begin with New England for a 
 moment. What has resulted, embrac- 
 ing, as I say, the nearly contempora- 
 neous settlement of Virginia, — what 
 has resulted from the planting upon this 
 continent of two or three slender colo- 
 nies from the mother country? Gentle- 
 men, the great epitaph commemorative 
 of the character and the worth, the 
 discoveries and glory, of Columbus, was, 
 that he had given a new world to the crowns 
 oj Castile and Aragon. Gentlemen, this 
 is a great mistake. It does not come up 
 at all to the great merits of Columbus. 
 lie gave the territory of the southern 
 hemisphere to the crowns of Castile and 
 Aragon ; but as a place for the plantation 
 of colonies, as a place for the habitation 
 of men, as a place to which laws and relig- 
 ion, and manners and science, were to be 
 transferred, as a phice in which the crea- 
 tures of God should multiply and fill the 
 earth, under friendlv skies and with relisr- 
 ious hearts, he gave it to llie whole world. 
 
 he gave it to universal man ! From this 
 seminal principle, and from a handful, a 
 Innidred saints, blessed of God and ever 
 honored of men, landed on tlie shores of 
 Plymouth and elsewhere along the coast, 
 united, as I have said already moie than 
 once, in tlie process of time, with the .set- 
 tlement at Jamestown, has sprung this 
 gr(!at people of which we are a portion. 
 
 I do not reckon myself among quite 
 the oldest of the land, and yet it so 
 happens that very recently I recurred to 
 an exulting speech or oration of my own, 
 in wliich I spoke of my country as con- 
 sisting of nine millions of people. I 
 could hardly persuade myself that within 
 the short time which had elapsed since 
 that epoch our population had doubled ; 
 and that at the present moment there 
 docs exist most unquestionably as great 
 a probability of its continued progress, 
 in the same ratio, as has ever existed 
 in any previous time. I do not know 
 whose imagination is fertile enough, I 
 do not know whose conjectures, I may 
 almost say, are icild enough to teU what 
 may be the progress of wealth and popu- 
 lation in the United States in half a 
 century to come. All we know is, here 
 is a people of from seventeen to twenty 
 millions, intelligent, educated, freehold- 
 ers, freemen, republicans, possessed ol 
 all the means of modern improvement, 
 modern science, arts, literature, with the 
 world before them ! There is nothing to 
 chock them till they touch the shores of 
 the Pacific, and then, they are so much 
 accustomed to water, that that 's a facil- 
 ity, and no obstruction ! 
 
 So much, Gentlemen, for this branch 
 of the English race ; but what has hap- 
 pened, meanwhile, to England herself 
 since the period of the departure of the 
 Puritans from the coast of Lincolnshire, 
 from the English Boston ? Gentlemen, 
 in speaking of the progre.ss of English 
 power, of English dominion and author- 
 ity, from that period to the present, I 
 shall be understood, of course, as neither 
 entering into any defence or anj accusa- 
 tion of the policy which has conducted 
 her to her present state. As to the jus- 
 tice of her wars, the necessity of her 
 conquests, the propriety of those acts by 
 
502 
 
 TilE LANDING AT PLYIIOUTU. 
 
 which she has taken possession of so 
 great a portion of the globe, it is not the 
 business of the present occasion to in- 
 quire. Neque ieneo, neque re/ello. But 
 1 speak of them, or intend to speak of 
 them, as facts of the most extraordinary 
 character, unequalled in the history of 
 any natio'i ca the globe, and the conse- 
 quences of which may and must reach 
 through a thousand generations. The 
 Puritans left England in the reign of 
 James the First. England herself had 
 then become somewhat settled and es- 
 tablished in the Protestant faith, and in 
 the quiet enjoyment of property, by the 
 previous energetic, long, and prosperous 
 I'eign of Elizabeth. Her successor was 
 James the Sixth of Scot'<»ni, now 
 become James the First of England; 
 and here was a union of the crowns, but 
 not of the kingdoms, — a very important 
 distinction. Ireland was held by a 
 military power, and one cannot but see 
 that at that day, whatever may be true 
 or untrue in more recent periods of her 
 history, Ireland was held by England by 
 the two great potencies, the power of the 
 sword and the power of confiscation. In 
 other respects, England was nothing like 
 the England which we now behold. Her 
 foreign pos.sessions were quite inconsid- 
 erable. She had some hold on the ^^'est 
 India Islands; she had Acadia, or Nova 
 Scotia, which King James granted, by 
 wholesale, for the endowment of the 
 knights whom he ci'eated by hundreds. 
 And what luus been her progress ? Did 
 slie then possess Gibraltar, the key to the 
 Llediterranean ? Did she possess a port 
 in the Mediterranean? Was Malta hers? 
 AVeie the Ionian Islands hers? Was 
 the southern extremity of Africa, was 
 the Cajie of Good Hope, hers? Were 
 tlie whole cf her vast possessions in 
 India hera V Was lier great Australian 
 emjiire hers ? While that branch of her 
 poimlation wliich followed the western 
 star, and under its guidance connni.tted 
 itself to the duty of settling, fertilizing, 
 and peopling an unknown wililerne.'^s in 
 the West, were pursuing their destinies, 
 other causes, providential doubtless, 
 were leailing Englisii power eastward 
 and southward, in consequence and by 
 
 means of her naval prowe.ss, and the 
 extent of her commerce, until in our day 
 we have seen that within the Mediterra- 
 nean, on the western coast and at the 
 southern extremity of Africa, in Arabia, 
 in hither India and farther India, she 
 has a ix)pulation ten times Jis great as 
 that of the British Isles two centuries 
 ago. And recently, as we have wit- 
 nes.-^ed, — I will not say with how much 
 truth and justice, policy or impolicy, I 
 do not speak at all to the morality of 
 the action, I only speak to the fact, — 
 she has found admission into China, and 
 has carried the Christian religion and 
 the Protestant faith to the doors of three 
 hundred millious cf jjeopie. 
 
 It has been said that whosoever would 
 see the Eastern world before it turns 
 into a Western world must make his 
 visit soon, because steamboats and om- 
 nibuses, commerce, and all the arts of 
 Europe, are extending themselves from 
 Egypt to Suez, from Suez to tlie Indian 
 seas, and from the Indian seas all over tho 
 explored regions of the still farther East. 
 
 Xow, Gentlemen, I do not know what 
 practical views or what practical results 
 may take place from this great expan- 
 sion of the power of the two branches of 
 Old England. It is not for me to say. 
 I only can see, that on this continent all 
 is to be A nfjlo- American from Plymoutli 
 Rock to the Pacific seas, from the north 
 pole to California. That is certain ; and 
 in the Eastern world, I only see that you- 
 can hardly place a finger on a map of 
 the world and be an inch from an En^r- 
 lish settlement. 
 
 Gentlemen, if there be any thing in 
 the supremacy of races, the experiment 
 now in piogress will develop it. If 
 there be any truth in the idea, that th.se 
 who issued from the great Caucasian 
 fountain, and spread over Europe, aie 
 to react on India and on Asia, and to 
 act on the whole Western world, it may 
 not be for us, nor our children, nor our 
 grandciiildren, to see it, but it will be 
 for our descendants of some generation 
 to see the extent of that prog:-ess and 
 dominion of tlie favored races. 
 
 For myself, I believe there is no limit 
 fit to be assigned to it by the human 
 
THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 
 
 503 
 
 mind, because T find at work eveiy where, 
 on both sides of the Atlantic, under 
 various forms and degrees of restriction 
 on the one hand, and under various 
 degrees of motive and stimulus on the 
 other hand, in these branches of a com- 
 mon race, the great [uinciple of the frec- 
 d')vi of human thought, and the renpecta- 
 bility of indlcidual character. I find 
 everj'where an elevation of the character 
 01 man as man, an elevation of the in- 
 dividual as a component part of society. 
 1 find eveiywhere a rebuke of the idea, 
 that the many are made for the few, or 
 that government is any thing but an 
 agency for mankind. And I care not 
 beneath what zone, frozen, temperate, 
 or torrid; I care not of what complexion, 
 wiiite or brown ; I care not under w hat 
 circumstances of climate or cultivation, — 
 if I can find a race of men on an inhabi- 
 table spot of earth whose general senti- 
 ment it is, and whose general feeling it 
 ' is, that government is made for man, — 
 man, as a religious, moral, and social 
 being, — and not man for government, 
 there I know that I shall find prosperity 
 and happiness. 
 
 Gentlemen, I forbear from these re- 
 marks. I recur with pleasure to the 
 sentiment which I expressed at the com- 
 mencement of my observations. I re- 
 peat the gratification which I feel at 
 having been referred to on this occasion 
 by a distinguished member of the mer- 
 cantile profession; and without detain- 
 ing you further, I beg to oifer as a senti- 
 ment, — 
 
 " The mercantile interest of the United 
 States, always and everywhere friendly 
 to a united and free government." 
 
 Mr. Webster sat down amid lotid and re- 
 peated applause ; and imiiiediatfly after, at 
 the request of the President, rose and said : — 
 
 Gentlemen, I have the permission of 
 the President to call your attention to 
 the circumstance that a distinguished 
 foreigner is at the table to-night, Mr. 
 Aldham; a gentleman, I am happy to 
 say, of my own hard-working profes- 
 sion, and a member of the English Par- 
 liament from the great city of Leeds. 
 A traveller in the United States, in the 
 
 most unostentatious manner, he has 
 done us the honor, at the request of the 
 Society, to be present to-night. I rise, 
 Gentlemen, to propose his health. He 
 is of that Old England of which I have 
 been speaking; of that Old England 
 with whom we had some fifty years ago 
 rather a serious family quarrel, — ter- 
 minated in a manner, I believe, not 
 particularly disadvantageous to either 
 of us. He will find in this, his first 
 visit to our country, many things to 
 remind him of his own home, and the 
 pursuits in which he is engaged in that 
 home. If he will go into our courts of 
 law, he will find those who practise 
 there referring to the same books of 
 authority, acknowledging the same 
 principles, discussing the same subjects 
 which he left under discussion in West- 
 minster Hall. H he go into our public 
 assemblies, he will find the same rules 
 of procedure — possibly not always quite 
 as regularly observed — as he left be- 
 hind him in that house of Parliament 
 of which he is a member. At any rate, 
 he will find us a branch of that great 
 family to which he himself belongs, and 
 I doubt not that, in his sojourn among 
 us, in the acquaintances he may fonn, 
 the notions he may naturally imbibe, he 
 will go home to his own comitry some- 
 what better satisfied with what he has 
 seen and learned on this side of the 
 Atlantic, and somewhat more conN^nced 
 of the great importance to both coun- 
 tries of preserving the peace that at 
 present subsists between them. I pro- 
 pose to you. Gentlemen, the health of 
 Mr. Aldham. 
 
 Mr. Aldham rose and said : — " Mr. Presi- 
 dent and Gentlemen of tlie New England 
 Society, I little expected to be called on to 
 take a part in the proceedings of tliis even- 
 ing ; but I am very happy in bci«g afforded 
 an opportunity of expressing my graitful 
 acknowledgments for the very cordial hospi- 
 tality which you have extended to nie, and 
 the very agreeable intellectual treat with 
 which I have been favored this evening 
 It was with no little astonishment that I 
 listened to the terms in which I was intro- 
 duced to you by a gentleman whom I so 
 much honor (Mr. Webster). The kind and 
 friendly terms in which he referred to me 
 
504 
 
 THE LANDING AT PLYMOUTH. 
 
 were, indeed, quite unmerited by their hum- 
 ble object, and nothing, indeed, could liave 
 been more inappropriate. It is impossible 
 for any stranger to witness such a scene as 
 this without the greatest interest. It is the 
 celebration or an event which already 
 stands recorded as one of the most inter- 
 esting and momentous occurrences which 
 ever took place in the annals of our race. 
 And an Englishman especially cannot but 
 experience the deepest emotion as he re- 
 gards such a scene. Every thing which he 
 sees, every emblem employed in this cele- 
 bration, many of the topics introdui-ed, re- 
 mind iiim most impressively of that com- 
 
 munity of ancestry which exists between 
 his own countrymen and that great race 
 which peoples this continent, and which, in 
 enterprise, ingenuity, and conmiercial ac- 
 tivity, — in all the elements indeed of a 
 great and prosperous nation, — is certainly 
 not exceeded, perhaps not equalled, by any 
 other nation on the face of the globe. Gen- 
 tlemen, I again thank you for the honor 
 you have done me, and conclude by ex- 
 pressing the hope that the event may con- 
 tinue to be celebrated in the manner wliich 
 its importance and interest merit." 
 
 Mr. Aldham sat down amid great ap- 
 plause. 
 
THE CIimSTLVN MINISTRY AND THE RELIGIOUS 
 INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 A SPEE.CH DELIVERED IN" THE SUPREME COURT AT WASHINGTON, ON THK 
 20th of FEBRUARY, 1844, IN THE GIRARD WILL CASE. 
 
 |TnE heirs at law of the late Stephen 
 Girard, of Philadelphia, instituted a suit in 
 October, 183G, in the Circuit Court of the 
 J2astern District of Pennsylvania, sitting 
 as a court of equity, to try the question of 
 the validity of his will. In April, 1841, the 
 cause came on for hearing in tlie Circuit 
 Court, and was decided in favor of the 
 will. The case was carried by appeal to 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 at Washington, where it was argued by 
 General Jones and Mr. Webster for the com- 
 plainants and appellants, and by Messrs. 
 Binncy and Sergeant for the validity of 
 the will. 
 
 The following speech was made by Mr. 
 Webster in the course of the trial at Wash- 
 ington. A deep impression was produced 
 upon tlie public mind by those portions of 
 it which enforced the intimate connection 
 of the Christian ministry with the business 
 of instruction, and the necessity of found- 
 ing education on a religious basis. 
 
 This impression resulted in the follow- 
 ing correspondence : — 
 
 " IVashinffton, February 13, 1844. 
 "Sir, — Enclosed is a copy of certain pro- 
 ceedings of a meeting held in reference to your 
 argument in tlie Supreme Court of the case 
 arising out of tlie late Mr. Girard's will. la 
 communitaling to you the request contained in 
 the second resoliUion, we take leave to express 
 our earnest hope that you may tind it conven- 
 ient to comply with that request. 
 
 " We are, Sir, with high consideration, 
 yours, very respactfully, 
 
 P. K. Kendall, 
 
 HoH.VCE Sthingfellow, 
 
 JosHC.\ N. Danfukth, 
 
 R. R. Gur.LEY, 
 
 AViLLIAM RUUGLES, 
 J-^KL S. Hacon, 
 TiiDjiAs Sewall, 
 WiLLi,\3i H. Edwards, 
 Hon. IV^nikl Webster." 
 
 Committee. 
 
 "At a meeting of a number of citizens, be- 
 longing to different religious denominations, of 
 Washington and its vicinity, convened to con- 
 sider the expediency of procuring the publica- 
 tion of so much of ^Ir. Webster's argument 
 before the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 in the case of Francois F. Vidal et al.. Appel- 
 lants, V. The JIayor, Aldermen, and Citizens 
 of Philadelphia, and Stephen Girard's Execu- 
 tors, as relates to that part of Mr. Girard's will 
 which excludes ministers of religion from any 
 station or duty in the college directed by the 
 testator to be founded, and denies to them the 
 right of visiting said college; the object of the 
 meeting having been stated by Professor Sewall 
 in a few appropriate remarks, the Hon. Henrv 
 L. Ellsworth was elected chairman, and tho 
 Rev. Isaac S. Tinsley secretary. 
 
 " Whereupon it was, on motion, unanimously 
 resolved, 
 
 "1st. That, in the opinion of this meeting, 
 the powerful and eloquent argument of Mr. 
 Webster, on the before-mentioned clause of Mr. 
 Girard's will, demonstrates the vital importance 
 of Chri.stianity to the success of our free institu- 
 tions, and its necessity as the basis of all useful 
 moral education: and that the general diffusion 
 of that argument among the people of the United 
 States is a matter of deep public interest. 
 
 '•2d. Tiiat a committee of eight persons, of 
 the several Christian denominations represented 
 in this meeting, be appointed to wait on Mr. 
 Webster, and, in the name and on behalf of 
 this meeting, to request him to prepare for the 
 press the portion referred to of his argument in 
 the Girard case; and, siiould he consent tc do 
 so, to cause it to be speedily published and ex- 
 tensively disseminated. 
 
 "Tlie following gentlemen were appointed 
 the committee under the second resolution 
 Philip R. Fendall, Esq., Rev. Horace String- 
 fellow, Rev. Joshua N. Danforth, Rev. R. Ran- 
 dolph Gurley, Professor William Ruggles, Rev. 
 President J. S. Bacon, Doctor Thomas Sewall, 
 Rev. William B. Edwards. 
 
 "The meeting then adjourned. 
 
 "11. L. Kllsworth, Chairman 
 "Is.vac S. Tinsley, Secretai-y." 
 
bU6 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 " Washington, February 13, 1844. 
 
 "Gkntlhmen, — I have the honor to ac- 
 kiK.wleci;^e ihe receipt of your coniraunication. 
 Gentlemen connected with the pulilic press 
 have, I believe, reported my speech in the case 
 arising! under Mr. Girard's will. I will look 
 over the report of that part of it to which you 
 refer, so far as to see that it is free from mate- 
 rial errors, but I have not leisure so to revise it 
 as to f;;ive it the form of a careful or regular 
 composition. 
 
 " I am. Gentlemen, with very true regard, 
 jour obt;dient servant, 
 
 " Daniel Webster. 
 
 ■'Tc Messrs. P. K. Fexdau-, 
 
 IIuKACE SxitlNGFELI-nW, 
 
 Joshua X. Daxforth, 
 
 K. K. GUKLKY, 
 
 William HfOGLES, 
 Joel S. Bacon, 
 Tuo.MAS Sewall, 
 William B. Edwards." 
 
 The followin":^ mottoes were jirefi-xed to 
 this speech, in the original pamphlet edi- 
 tion. 
 
 ^^ Socrates. If. then, yon wish public meas- 
 ures to be right and noble, virtue must be given 
 by you to the citizens. 
 
 " Alcibindes. How could any one deny that ? 
 
 "Soorates. Virtue, therefore, is that wliich 
 is to be first possessed, both by you and by 
 ^very other person who would have direction 
 and care, not only for himself and things dear 
 to himself, but for the state and things dear to 
 the state. 
 
 '' Alcibi<ules. You speak truly. 
 
 ^^ Socrates. To act justly anil wisely (both 
 you ami the state). You must act according 
 TO the will ok Goi>. 
 
 " Alcibiadts. It is so." — Plato. 
 
 " Sic iv'itur hoc a principio persuasum civibus, 
 dominos esse omnium rerum ac moderatores, 
 deos " — Cicero de Leyibtis. 
 
 " We shall never be such fools as to call in 
 an enemy to the substance of any system, to 
 supply its defects, or to perfect its construction " 
 
 " if our religious tenets should ever want a 
 further elucidation, we shall not call on atheism 
 to explain them We shall not light up our 
 temple from that unhallowed tire." 
 
 "We know, and it is our pride to know, that 
 man is, by his constitution, a religious animal." 
 — Burke. 
 
 May it please your Honors: — 
 
 It i.s not necessai'V for me to narrate, 
 in detail, the numerous provi^ion.s of 
 Mr. Girard's will. This has already 
 been repeatedly done by other counsel, 
 ami 1 .'^hidl content my.self with statins^ 
 and considering those parts only which 
 are immediately involved in the decision 
 of this cause. 
 
 Tlie will is drawn witli apparent care 
 and method, and is recfularly divided 
 inl? clauses. Tiio first nineti'cn clauses 
 couMiu various devises and legacies to 
 
 relatives, to other private individualSj 
 and to public bodies. By the tweutietn 
 clause the whole residue of his estate, 
 real and personal, is devised and be- 
 queathed to the "mayor, aldermen, 
 and citizens of Philadelphia," in trust 
 for the several uses to be after men- 
 tioned and declared. 
 
 The twenty-first clause contains the 
 devise or bequest to the college, in these 
 words : — 
 
 " And so far as regards the residue of 
 my personal estate in trust, as to two mil- 
 lions of dollars, part thereof, to apply and 
 expend so much of that sum as may be 
 necessary in erecting, as soon as practica- 
 bly may be, in the centre of my square of 
 ground, between High and Chestnut Streets, 
 and Eleventh and Twelftli Streets, in the 
 city of riiiladelphia, (wliich square of 
 ground I hereby devote for the purpose 
 hereinafter stated, and for no other, for 
 ever.) a permanent college, with suitable 
 out-buildings sufficiently spacious for the 
 residence and acconunodation of at least 
 three imndred scholars, and the requisite 
 teachers and other persons necessary in. 
 such an institution as I direct to be estab- 
 lished, and in supplying the said college and 
 out-buildings with decent and suitalile fur- 
 niture, as well as books, and all things 
 needful to carry into effect my general 
 design." 
 
 The testator then proceeds to direct 
 that the college shall be constructed of 
 the most durable materials, avoiding 
 needless ornament, and attending chiefly 
 to the strength, convenience, and neat- 
 ness of the whole; and gives directions, 
 very much in detail, respecting the form 
 of the building, and the size and fashion 
 of the rooms. The whole square, he 
 directs, shall be enclosed with a .solid 
 wall, at lea,st fourteen inches tliick and 
 ten feet high, capped with nuuble, and 
 guarded with irons on the top, so as to 
 prevent persons from getting over; and 
 there are to be two places of entrance 
 into the square, with two gates at each, 
 one opening inward and the other out- 
 ward, those opening inward to be of 
 iron, aiui those opening outward to be 
 of wood-work, lined with sheet-iron. 
 
 The testator then pmceeds to give 
 his directions resjiecting the institution, 
 
AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE TOUNG. 
 
 507 
 
 laying down his plan and objects in 
 seveial articles. The third article is in 
 these words : — 
 
 " 3. As many poor wliitc male orphans, 
 between the ayes of six and ten years, as 
 the said income shall be adeqnatc to main- 
 lain, shall be iiilrodiu'rd into the collefie as 
 soon as possible ; and from time to time, 
 as there may be vacancies, or as increased 
 ability from income may warrant, others 
 eliall be introduced." 
 
 The fifth direction is as follows: — 
 
 "5. No orphan should be admitted until 
 tlie guardians, or directors of the poor, or 
 a proper guardian or other competent au- 
 thority, shall have given, by indenture, re- 
 linquishment, or otherwise, adequate power 
 to tlie mayor, aldermen, and citizens of 
 Philadelphia, or to directors or others by 
 them appointed, to enforce, in relation to 
 each orphan, every proper restraint, and to 
 prevent relations or others from interfer- 
 ing with or withdrawing such orphan from 
 the institution." 
 
 By the sixth article, or direction, 
 preference is to be given, first, to or- 
 phans born in Philadelphia; second, to 
 those born in other parts of Pennsyl- 
 vania ; third, to those born in the city 
 of New York; and, lastly, to those born 
 in the city of New Orleans. 
 
 By the seventh article, it is declared, 
 that the orphans shall be lodged, fed, 
 and clothed in the coUege; that they 
 shall be instructed in the various branch- 
 es of a sound education, comprehend- 
 ing reading, writing, grammar, arith- 
 metic, geography, navigation, surveying, 
 practical mathematics, astronomy, nat- 
 ural, chemical, and experimental phi- 
 losophy, and the French and Spanish 
 languages, and such other learning and 
 science as the capacities of the scholars 
 iini}' merit or want. The Greek and 
 Latin languages are not forbidden, but 
 are not recommended. 
 
 By the ninth article it is declared, 
 that tlie boys shall remain in the college 
 till they arrive at between fomleeu and 
 eighteen years of age, when they shall 
 be bound out by the city government to 
 suitable occupations, such as agricul- 
 ture, navigation, and the mechanical 
 trades. 
 
 The testator proceeds to say, that 
 he necessarily leaves many details to 
 the city government; and then adds, 
 " There are, however, some i-estrictions 
 which I consider it my duty to pre- 
 scribe, and to be, amongst otheis, con- 
 ditions on which my bequest for said 
 college is made, and to be enjoyed." 
 
 The second of these restrictions iB '.u 
 the following words : — 
 
 " Secondly. I enjoin and require ^iut no 
 ecclesiastic, missioiiari/, or minister, of anij sect 
 whatever, shall ever hold or exercise uni/ station 
 or dull/ whatever in the said college ; nor shall 
 any such person ever be admitted for any pui- 
 pose, or as a visitor, within the premises ap- 
 propriated to the purposes of the said college. 
 
 " In making this restriction, I do not 
 mean to cast any reflection upon any sect 
 or person whatsoever; but, as there is such 
 a diversity of opinion amongst them, I de- 
 sire to keep the tender minds of the or 
 plians who are to derive advantage from 
 this bequest free from the excitement 
 which clashing doctrines and sectarian con- 
 troversy are so apt to produce ; my desire 
 is, that all the instructors and teachers in 
 the college shall take pains to instil into 
 the minds of the scholars the purest princi' 
 pies of morality, so that on their entrance 
 into active life they may, from inclination 
 and habit, evince benevolence towards their 
 fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, 
 and industry, adopting at the same time 
 such religious tenets as their matured reason 
 may enable them to prefer." 
 
 The testator having, after the date ol 
 his will, bought a house in Penn Town- 
 ship, with forty-five acres of land, he 
 made a codicil, by which he directed 
 the college to be built ou this estate, in- 
 stead of the square mentioned in the 
 will, and the whole establishment to be 
 made thereon, just as if he had in hia 
 wiU devoted the estate to that purpose. 
 The city government has accordingly 
 been advised that the whole forty-live 
 acres must be enclosed with the same 
 high wall as was provided in the will 
 for the square in the city. 
 
 I have now stated, I believe, all tue 
 provisions of the will which are mate- 
 rial to tlie discussion of that part of the 
 case which respects the character of 
 the institution. 
 
508 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 The first question is, whether this de- 
 vise can be sustained, otherwise than as 
 a chanty, and by that special aid and 
 assistance by which courts of equity 
 support gifts to charitable uses. 
 
 If the devise be a good limitation at 
 law, if it require no exercise of the 
 favor which is bestowed on privileged 
 testaments, then there is ah-eady an end 
 to the question. But I take it that this 
 point is conceded. The devise is void, 
 according to the general rules of law, 
 on account of the uncertainty in the 
 description of those who are intended to 
 receive its benefits. 
 
 " Poor white male oqihan children" 
 is so loose a description, that no one can 
 bring hunself within the terms of the 
 bequest, so as to say that it was made 
 in his favor. No individual can ac- 
 quire any right or interest; nobody, 
 Uicrefore, can come forward as a party, 
 in a court of law, to claim participation 
 in the gift. The bequest must stand, if 
 it stand at all, on the peculiar rules 
 which equitable jurisprudence applies to 
 charities. This is clear. 
 
 I proceed, therefore, to submit, and 
 most conscientiously to argue, a ques- 
 tion, certainly one of the highest which 
 this court has ever been called upon to 
 consider, and one of the highest, and 
 most important, in my opinion, ever 
 likely to come before it. That question 
 is, icltellier, in the eye of equitable juris- 
 prudence, this flense he a charity at all. 
 I deny that it is so. I maintain, that 
 neither by judicial decisions nor by cor- 
 rect reasoning ou general principles can 
 this devise or bequest be regarded as a 
 charity. This part of the argument is 
 not affected by the particular judicial 
 Eystera of Pennsylvania, or the question 
 of tlie p-ower of her courts to iq)lic)ld 
 and administer charitable gifts. The 
 question which I now propose respects 
 the inlierent, essential, and manifest 
 character of the devi.se itself. In this 
 respect, I wish to express myself clearly, 
 and to be correctly and distinctly under- 
 fitood. What I have said I shall stand 
 by, and endeavor to maintain; namely, 
 that in the view of a court of eciuity 
 this devise is no charily at all. It is no 
 
 charity, because the plan of education 
 proposed by ^Ir. Girard is derogatory to 
 the Christian religion ; tends to weaken 
 men's reverence for that religion, and 
 their conviction of its authority' and im- 
 portance; and therefore, in its general 
 character, tends to mischievous, and not 
 to useful ends. 
 
 The proposed school is to be founded 
 on plain and clear principles, and for 
 plain and clear objects, of infidelity. 
 This cannot well be doubted; and a 
 gift, or devise, for such objects, is not a 
 charity, and as such entitled to the 
 well-known favor with which charities 
 are received and upheld by the courts of 
 Christian countries. 
 
 In the next place, the object of this 
 bequest is against the public policy of 
 the State of Pennsylvania, in which 
 State Christianity is declared to be the 
 law of the land. For that reason, 
 therefore, as well as the other, the de- 
 vise ought not to be allowed to take 
 effect. 
 
 These are the two propositions which 
 it is my purpose to maintain, on this 
 part of the case. 
 
 This scheme of instruction begins 
 by attempting to attach reproach and 
 odium to the whole clergj' of the coun- 
 try. It places a brand, a stigma, on 
 every individual member of the profes- 
 sion, without an exception. No min- 
 ister of the Gospfcl, of any denomina- 
 tion, is to be allowed to come within 
 the grounds belonging to this school, on 
 any occasion, or for any purpose what- 
 ever. They are all rigorously excluded, 
 as if their mere presence might cause 
 pestilence. We have heard it said that 
 ^Ir. (Jirard, by this will, distributed his 
 charity without distinction of sect or 
 ]iarty. However that may be. Sir, he 
 certainly has dealt out op]n-obrium to 
 the whole profession of the clergy, with- 
 out regard to sect or party. 
 
 Hy this w',11, no minister of the Gos- 
 pel of any sect or denomination what- 
 ever can be authorized or allowed to 
 hold any office witliin the college; and 
 not only that, but no minister or clergy- 
 man of any sect can, for any purpose 
 whatever, enter within the walls that 
 
AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 m 
 
 are to surround this college. If a 
 clergj'man has a sick nephew, or a sick 
 graiiilson, lie cannot, upon any pretext, 
 be allowed to visit him within the walls 
 of the college. The provision of the 
 will is exjiress and decisive. Still less 
 may a clerg•}^llan enter to offer consola- 
 tion to the sick, or to unite in prayer 
 with the dying. 
 
 Now, I will not arraign Mr. Girard 
 or his motives for this. I will not in- 
 quire into Mr. Girard's opinions upon 
 religion. But I feel bound to say, tiie 
 occasion demands that I should say, that 
 this is the most opprobrious, the most 
 insulting and unmerited stigma, that 
 ever was cast, or attempted to be cast, 
 upon the preachers of Christianity, 
 from north to south, from east to west, 
 through the length and breadth of the 
 land, in the history of the country. 
 "When have they deserved it? Where 
 have they deserved it? How have they 
 deserved it? They are not to be allowed 
 even the ordinary rights of hospitality ; 
 not even to be permitted to put their 
 foot over the threshold of this college ! 
 
 Sir, I take it upon myself to say, that 
 in no comitry in tiie world, upon either 
 continent, can there be found a body of 
 ministers of the Gospel who perform so 
 much service to man, in such a full 
 spirit of self-denial, under so little en- 
 couragement from government of any 
 kind, and under circimistances almost 
 always much straitened and often dis- 
 tressed, as the ministers of the Gospel 
 in the United States, of all denomina- 
 tions. They form no part of any estab- 
 lished order of religion ; they constitute 
 no hierarchy; they enjoy no peculiar 
 privileges. In some of the States they 
 are even shut out from all participation 
 in the political rights and privileges en- 
 joyed by their fellow-citizens. They 
 enjoy no tithes, no public provision of 
 any kind. Except here and there, in 
 large cities, where a wealthy individual 
 occasionally makes a donation for the 
 support of public worship, what have 
 they to dejiend upon? They have to 
 dejiend entirely on the voluntary con- 
 tributions of those who hear them. 
 
 And this body of clergymen has 
 
 shown, to the honor of their own coun- 
 try and to the astonishment of the hie 
 rarchies of the Old World, tluit it is 
 practicable in free governments to raise 
 and sustain by voluntary contributions 
 alone a body of clergymen, whicli, foi 
 devotedness to their sacred calling, for 
 purity of life and character, for learn- 
 ing, intelligence, piety, and that wis- 
 dom wliich Cometh from above, is in- 
 ferior to zione, and superior to most 
 others. 
 
 I hope that our learned men have 
 done something for the honor of our lit- 
 erature abroad. I hoi^e that the courts 
 of justice and members of the bar of 
 this country have done something to 
 elevate the character of the profession 
 of the law. I hope that the discussions 
 above (in Congress) have done some- 
 thing to meliorate the condition of 
 the human race, to secure and extend 
 tlie great charter of human rights, and 
 to strengthen and advance the great 
 principles of human liberty. But I 
 contend that no literary efforts, no ad- 
 judications, no constitutional discus- 
 sions, nothing that has been done or 
 said in favor of the great interests of 
 universal man, has done this country 
 more credit, at home and abroad, than 
 the establishment of our body of clerg}-- 
 men, their support by voluntarj' contri- 
 butions, and the general excellence of 
 their character for piety and learning. 
 
 The great truth has thus been pro- 
 claimed and proved, a truth which I be- 
 lieve will in time to come shake all the 
 hierarchies of Europe, that il.e volun- 
 tary support of such a ministry, undei 
 free institutions, is a practicable idea. 
 
 And yet every one of these, the Chris- 
 tian ministers of the United States, is 
 by this devise denied the privileges 
 which are at the same time open to the 
 vilest of our race ; every one is shut oul 
 from tliis, I had almost said sancluin, 
 but 1 will not profane that word by such 
 a use of it. 
 
 Did a man ever live that had a respect 
 for the Christian religion, and yet had 
 no regard for an;/ one of its ministers? 
 Did that system of instruction ever 
 exist, which denounced the whole body 
 
MO 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 of Christian teachers, and yet called 
 itself a system of ChristianityV 
 
 The learned counsel on the other side 
 eee the weak points of this case. They 
 are not blind. They have, with the aid 
 of their great learninc:, industry, and 
 research, gone back to the time of Con- 
 stant ine, they have searched the history 
 of the Roman emperors, the Dark Ages, 
 and the interv'ening period, down to the 
 settlement of these colonies; they have 
 explored every nook and corner of relig- 
 ious and Christian history, to find out 
 the various meanings and uses of Chris- 
 tian charity ; and yet, with all their 
 skill and all their research, tliey have 
 not been able to discover any thing which 
 has ever been regarded as a Christian 
 charity, that sets such an opprobrium 
 upon the forehead of all its ministers. 
 If, with all tlieir endeavors, they can 
 find any one thing which has been so 
 regarded, they mai/ have their college, and 
 make the most of it. But the thing 
 does not exist ; it never had a being ; his- 
 tory does not record it, common sense 
 revolts at it. It certainly is not neces- 
 sary for me to make an ecclesiastical 
 argument in favor of this proposition. 
 The thing is so plain, that it must in- 
 stantly commend itself to your honors. 
 
 It has been said that Mr. Girard was 
 charitable. I am not now going to con- 
 trovert this. I hope he was. 1 hope he 
 has found his reward. It has also been 
 asked, " Cannot Mr. Girard be allowed 
 to have his own will, to devise his prop- 
 erty according to his own desire? " Cer- 
 tainly he can, in any legal devise, and 
 the law will sustain him therein. But 
 it is not for him to overturn the law of 
 the land. The law cannot be altered to 
 please jNIr. Girard. He found that out, 
 1 believe, in two or three instances in 
 his lifetime. Nor can the law be altered 
 on account of the magnitude and mu- 
 nificence of the bounty. What is the 
 value of that bounty, however great or 
 munificent, wliich touches the very foun- 
 dations of human society, which touches 
 the very foundations of Christian char- 
 ity, which touches the very foundations 
 of public law, and the Constitution, and 
 the whole welfare of the state? 
 
 And now, let me ask, TMiat i'. in con- 
 templation of law, "a charity"? The 
 word has various significations. In the 
 larger and broader sense, it means the 
 kindly exercise of the social affections, 
 all the good feelings which man enter- 
 tains towards man. Charity is love. 
 This is that charity of which St. Paul 
 speaks, that charity which covereth the 
 sins of men, " that suffereth all things, 
 hopeth all things." In a more popular 
 sense, charity is alms-giving or active 
 benevolence. 
 
 But the question for your honors to 
 decide here is, What is a charitj% or a 
 charitable use, in contemplation of law? 
 To answer this inquiry, we are generally 
 referred to the objects enumerated in the 
 43d of Elizabeth. The objects enumer- 
 ated in that statute, and others analo- 
 gous to them, are charities in the sen.se 
 of equitable jurispriulence. 
 
 There is no doubt that a school of 
 learning is a charitv. It is one of those 
 mentioned in the statutes. Such a school 
 of learning as was contemplated by the 
 statutes of Elizabeth is a charity; and 
 all such have borne tliat name and char- 
 acter to this day. I mean to confine 
 myself to that description of charity, the 
 statute charity, and to apply it to this 
 ca.se alone. 
 
 The devise before us proposes to es- 
 tablish, as its main object, a school of 
 learning, a college. There are provis- 
 ions, of course, for lodging, clothing, 
 and feeding the pupils, but all this is 
 subsidiary. The great object is the in- 
 struction of the young ; although it pro- 
 poses to give the children better food 
 and clothes and lodging, and proposes 
 that the system of education shall be 
 somewhat better than that which is usu- 
 ally provided for tlie poor and destitute 
 in our public institutions generally. 
 
 The main object, then, is to establish 
 a scliool of learning for children, begin- 
 ning with them at a very tender age, 
 and retaining them (namely, from six 
 years to eighteen) till they are un the 
 verge of manhood, when tlioy will have 
 expended more than one third part of 
 the average duration of human life. 
 For if the college takes them at six, and 
 
AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 511 
 
 keeps tliem till they are eighteen, a 
 period of twelve years will be passed 
 within its walls; more than a third part 
 of the average of human life. These 
 children, then, are to be taken almost 
 before they learn their alphabet, and be 
 discharged about the time that men 
 enter on the active business of life. At 
 BIX, many do not know their alphabet. 
 John "Wesley did not know a letter till 
 after he was six years old, and his 
 mother then took him on her lap, and 
 taught him his alphabet at a single 
 lesson. There are many parents who 
 think that any attempt to instil the ru- 
 diments of education into the mind of a 
 child at an earlier age, is little better 
 than labor thrown away. 
 
 The great object, then, which Mr. 
 Girard seemed to have in view, was to 
 take these orphans at this very tender 
 age, and to keep them within his walls 
 until they were entering manhood. 
 And tills object I pray your honors 
 steadily to bear in mind. 
 
 I never, in the whole course of my 
 life, listened to any thing with more 
 sincere delight, than to the remarks of 
 my learned friend who opened this 
 cause, on the nature and character of 
 true charity. I agree with every word 
 he said on that subject. I almost envy 
 him his power of expressing so happily 
 what liis mind conceives so clearly and 
 correctly. lie is right when he .speaks 
 of it as ?.n emanation from the Chris- 
 tian lelig-i :n. lie is right when he 
 says '.hat it has its origin in the word of 
 God. He is right when he says that it 
 was unkno^^^l throughout all the world 
 till the first da'mi of Christianity. He 
 is right, pre-eminently riglit, in all this, 
 as he was pre-eminently happy in his 
 power of clothing his thoughts and feel- 
 ings in appropriate forms of speech. 
 And I maintain, that, in any institu- 
 tion for the instruction of youth, where 
 the authority of God is diso^NTied, and 
 the duties of Christianity derided and 
 despised, and its ministers shut out 
 from all participation in its proceed- 
 ings, there can no more be charity, true 
 charity, found to exist, than evil can 
 spring out of the Bible, error out of 
 
 truth, or hatred and animosity come 
 forth from the bosom of perfect love. 
 No, Sir! No, Sir! If charity denies 
 its birth and parentage, if it turns in- 
 fidel to the great doctrines of the Chris- 
 tian religion, if it turns unbeliever, it is 
 no longer charity! There is no longer 
 charity, either in a Christian sense or 
 in the sense of jurisprudence; for it 
 separates itself from the fountain of its 
 own creation. 
 
 There is nothing in the history of the 
 Christian religion; there is nothing in 
 the history of English law, either before 
 or after tlie Conquest; there can be 
 found no such thing as a school of in- 
 struction in a Christian land, from 
 which the Christian religion has been, 
 of intent and purpose, rigorously and 
 opprobriously excluded, and yet such 
 school regarded as a charitable trust or 
 foundation. This is the first instance 
 on record. I do not say that there may 
 not be charity schools in which religious 
 instruction is not jirovided. I need not 
 go that length, although I take that to 
 be the rule of the English law. But 
 what I do say, and repeat, is, that a 
 school for the instruction of the young, 
 which sedulously and reproachfully ex- 
 cludes Christian knowledge, is no char- 
 ity, either on principle or authority, 
 and is not, therefore, entitled to the 
 character of a charity in a court of 
 ecjuity. I have considered this proposi- 
 tion, and am ready to stand by it. 
 
 I will not say that there may not be a 
 charity for instruction, in wliich there 
 is no positive provision for the Chris- 
 tian religion. But I do say, and do in- 
 sist, that there is no such thing in the 
 history of religion, no such thing in the 
 history of human law, as a charity, a 
 school of instruction for children, from 
 which the Christian religion and Chi'is- 
 tian teachers are excluded, as unsafe 
 and unworthy intruders. Such a scheme 
 is deprived of that which enters into 
 the very essence of human benevolence, 
 when that benevolence contemplates in- 
 struction, that is to say, religious knowl- 
 edge, connected with human knowl- 
 edge. It is this which causes it to be 
 regarded as a charity; and by reason of 
 
512 
 
 THE CHRISTLVN MINISTRY 
 
 this it is entitled to the special favor of 
 the courts of law. This is the vital 
 question which must be decided by this 
 court. It is vital to the understanding 
 of what the law is, it is vital to the va- 
 lidity of this devise. 
 
 II this be true, if there can be no 
 charity in that plan of education which 
 opposes Christianity, then that goes far 
 to decide this case. I take it that this 
 court, in looking at this subject, will 
 see the important bearing of this point 
 upon it. The learned counsel said that 
 the State of Pennsylvania was not an 
 infidel State. It is true that she is not 
 an infidel State. She has a Christian 
 origin, a Clu'istian code of laws, a 
 system of legislation founded on noth- 
 ing else, in many of its important bear- 
 ings upon human society, than the 
 belief of the people of Pennsylvania, 
 their firm and sincere belief, in the di- 
 vine authority and great importance of 
 the truths of the Christian religion. 
 And she should the more carefully seek 
 to preserve them pure. 
 
 Now, let us look at the condition and 
 prospects of these tender children, who 
 are to be submitted to this experiment 
 of instruction without Christianity. In 
 the first place, they are orjihaus, have 
 no parents to guide or instruct them in 
 the way in which they should go, no 
 father, no religious mother, to lead them 
 to the pure fount of Christianity; they 
 are orphans. If they were only poor, 
 there might be somebody bomid by ties 
 of human affection to look after their 
 spiritual welfare; to see that they im- 
 bibed no erroneous opinions on the sub- 
 ject of religion ; that tliey run into no 
 excessive improprieties of belief as well 
 as conduct. The child would have its 
 father or mother to teach it to lisp the 
 name of its Creator in prayer, or hymn 
 His praise. But in this experimental 
 school of instruction, if the orphans 
 have any friends or connections able to 
 look after their welfare, it shuts tliem 
 out. It is made the duty of the gov- 
 ernors of the institution, on taking the 
 child, so to make out the indentiu"es of 
 a])prenticeship as to keep him from any 
 alter interference m his welfare on the 
 
 part of guardians or relatives; to keep 
 them from withdra\\-ing him from the 
 school, or interfering with his instruc- 
 tion whilst he is in the school, in any 
 manner whatever. 
 
 The school or college is to be sur- 
 rounded by high walls ; there are to be 
 two gates in these walls, and no more; 
 they are to be of iron within, and iron 
 bound or covered without; thus answer- 
 ing more to the description of a castle 
 than a school-house. The children are 
 to be thus guarded for twelve years in 
 this, I do not mean to say a prison, nor 
 do I mean to say that this is exactly 
 close confinement ; but it is much closer 
 confinement tlian ordinarily is met with, 
 under the r\iles of any institution at 
 present, and has a resemblance to the 
 monastic institutions of past ages, rath- 
 er than to any school for instruction at 
 this period, at least in this country. 
 
 All this is to be within one great en- 
 closure ; all that is done for the bodily 
 or mental welfare of the child is to be 
 done within this great wall. It has 
 been said that the children could attend 
 public worship elsewhere. Where is 
 the proof of this? There is no such 
 provision in the devise; there is nothing 
 said about it in any part of ^Ir. Gi- 
 rard's will; and I shall show presently 
 that any such thing would be just as ad- 
 verse to Mr. Girai-d's whole scheme, as 
 it would be that the doctrines of Chiis- 
 tianity shoidd be preached within the 
 walls of the college. 
 
 These children, then, are taken before 
 they know the alphabet. They are 
 kept till the period of early manhood, 
 and then sent out into the world to 
 enter upon its business and affairs. By 
 this time the character wiU have been 
 stamped. For if there is any truth in 
 the Bible, if there is any truth in those 
 oracles which soai- above all human au- 
 thority, or if any thing be established 
 as a general fact, by the experience of 
 mankind, in this first third of human 
 life the character is formed. And what 
 sort of a character is likely to be made 
 by tliis process, this exjierimental sys- 
 tem of instruction? 
 
 I have read the two provisions of Mr. 
 
AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 513 
 
 Girard's will in relation to this feature 
 of his school. The first excludes the 
 Christian religion and all its ministers 
 from its ■nails. The second explains 
 the whole principles upon which he pur- 
 poses to conduct his school. It was to 
 try an experiment in education, never 
 before known to the Christian world. 
 It had been recommended often enough 
 among those who did not belong to the 
 Christian world. But it was never 
 known to exist, never adopted by any- 
 body even professing a connection with 
 Christianity. And I cannot do better, 
 in order to show the tendency and ob- 
 ject of this institution, than to read 
 from a paper by Bishop ^^'hite, which 
 has been referred to by the other side. 
 
 In order to a right understanding of 
 what was IMr. Girard's real intention 
 and original design, we have only to 
 read carefully the words of the clause I 
 have referred to. lie enjoins that no 
 ministers of religion, of any sects, shall 
 be allowed to enter his college, on any 
 j>retence whatever. Now, it is obvious, 
 tliat by sects he means Christian sects. 
 Any of the followers of Voltaire or 
 D'Alembert may have admission into 
 this school whenever they please, be- 
 cause they are not usually spoken of as 
 '■ sects." The doors are to be opened 
 to the opposers and revilers of Chris- 
 tianity, in eveiy form and shape, and 
 shut to its supporters. "While the voice 
 of the upholders of Christianity is never 
 to be heard within the walls, the voices 
 of those who impugn Christianity may 
 be raised high and loud, till they shake 
 the marble roof of the building. It is 
 no less derogatoiy thiLS to exclude the 
 one, and admit the other, than it would 
 be to make a positive provision and all 
 tho necessary arrangements for lectures 
 and lessons and teachers, for all the de- 
 tails of the doctrines of infidelity. It is 
 equally derogatory, it is the same in 
 principle, thus to shut the door to one 
 party, and open the door to the other. 
 
 We must reason as to the probable 
 results of such a system according to 
 natural consequences. They say, on 
 the other side, that infidel teachers will 
 not be admitted in this school. How 
 
 33 
 
 do they know that ? AVliat is the in- 
 evitable tendency of such an education 
 as is here prescribed? What is likely 
 to occur ? The court cannot suppose 
 that tlie trustees will act in opposition 
 to the directions of the will. If thfy 
 accept the trust, they must fulfil it, and 
 carry out the details of ISIr. Girard's 
 plan. 
 
 Now, what is likely to be the effect 
 of this system on the minds of these 
 children, thus left solely to its perni- 
 cious influence, with no one to care for 
 tlieir spiritual welfare in this world or 
 the next? They are to be left entirely 
 to the tender mercies of those who will 
 try upon them tliis experiment of moral 
 philosophy or philosophical morality. 
 Morality without sentiment; benevo- 
 lence towards man, without a sense of 
 responsibility towards God; the duties 
 of this life peiiormed, without any 
 reference to the life which is to come; 
 this is Mr. Girard's theory of useful 
 education. 
 
 Half of these poor children may die 
 before the term of their education ex- 
 pires. Still, those who survive must 
 be brought up imbued fully with the 
 inevitable tendencies of the system. 
 
 It has been said that tliere may 
 be lay preachers among tliem. Lay 
 preachers ! This is ridiculous enough 
 in a country of Christianity and relig- 
 ion. [Here some one handed ^Mr. 
 Webster a note.] A friend informs me 
 that four of the principal religious sects 
 in this country, the Episcopalians, 
 Presbyterians, Methodists, and Bap- 
 tists, allow no lay preachers; and these 
 four constitute a large majority of the 
 religious and Christian portion of the 
 people of the United States. And, 
 besides, lay preaching would be just as 
 adverse to ]Mr. Girard's original object 
 and whole plan as professional preach- 
 ing, provided it should be Christianity 
 which should be preached. 
 
 It is plain, as plain as language can 
 be made, that he did not intend to 
 allow the minds of these children to be 
 troubled about religion of any kind, 
 whilst they were within the college. 
 And why ? He himself assigns the 
 
514 
 
 THE CIIKISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 reason. Because of the difficulty and 
 trouble, he says, that might arise from 
 the multitude of sects, and creeds, and 
 teachers, and the various clashing doc- 
 trines and tenets advanced by the differ- 
 ent preachers of Christianity. There- 
 fore his desire as to these orphans is, 
 that their minds should be kept free 
 from all bias of any kind in favor of 
 any description of Christian creed, till 
 they arrived at manhood, and should 
 have left the walls of his school. 
 
 Now, are not laymen equally sectarian 
 in their views with clergymen? And 
 would it not be just as easy to prevent 
 sectarian doctrines from being preached 
 by a clergyman, as from being taught 
 by a layman ? It is idle, therefore, to 
 speak of lay preaching. 
 
 Mr. Sergeant here rose, and said that 
 they on their side had not uttered one word 
 about lay preaching. It was lay teaching 
 they spoke of. 
 
 Well, I would just as soon take it 
 that way as the otlier, teaching as 
 preaching. Is not the teaching of lay- 
 men as sectarian as the preaching of 
 clergj-men? What is the diilerence 
 between unlettered laymen and lettered 
 clergymen in this respect ? Every one 
 inows that laymen are as violent con- 
 troversialists as clergj-men, and the less 
 informed the more violent. So this, 
 while it is a little more ridiculous, is 
 ■equally obnoxious. According to my 
 •experience, a layman is just as likely to 
 launch out into sectarian views, and to 
 advance clashing doctrines and violent, 
 bigoted prejudices, as a professional 
 preacher, and even more so. Every 
 objection to professional religious in- 
 struction applies with still greater force 
 to lay teaching. As in other cases, so 
 in this, the greatest degree of candor is 
 usually found accompanying the greatest 
 degree of knowledge. Xnthiug is more 
 apt to be positive and dogmatical than 
 ignorance. 
 
 But there is no provision in any part 
 «L Mr. (Jirard's will for the introduction 
 of any lay teaching on religious matters 
 whatever. The cliildren are to get their 
 religion Then they leave his school, and 
 
 they are to have nothing to do with re- 
 ligion before they do leave it. They 
 are then to choose their religious opin 
 ions, and not before. 
 
 Mr. Binnet. " Choose their tenets" is 
 the expression. 
 
 Tenets are opinions, I believe. The 
 ma.ss of one's religious tenets makes up 
 one's religion. 
 
 Now, it is evident that Mr Girard 
 meant to found a school of morals, 
 without any reference to, or connection 
 with, religion. But, after all, there is 
 nothing original in this plan of his. It 
 has its origin in a deistical source, but 
 not from the highest school of infidelity. 
 Not from Bolingbroke, or Shaftesbury, 
 or Gibbon; not even from Voltaire or 
 D'Alembert. It is from two persons 
 who were probably known to Mr. Gi- 
 rard in the early part of his life; it is 
 from Mr. Thomas Paine and Mr. Vol- 
 ney. Mr. Thomas Paine, in his " Age 
 of Reason," says: " Let us devise means 
 to establish schools of in.struction, that 
 we may banish the ignorance that the 
 ancient regime of kings and priests has 
 spread among the people. Let us prop- 
 agate morality, unfettered by super- 
 stition." 
 
 Mr. Bixvet. Wliat do you get that 
 from ' 
 
 The same place that Mr. Girard got 
 this provision of his will from, Paine's 
 " Age of Reason." The same phra.seol- 
 ogy in effect is here. Paine di.sguised 
 his real meaning, it is true. He said: 
 "Let us devise means to establish 
 schools to p)-opagate morality, unfet- 
 tered by fuperslidoti." Mr. Girard, 
 who had no disguise about him, uses 
 plain language to express the same 
 meaning. In Mr. Girard's view, relig- 
 ion is just that thing which Mr. Paine 
 calls superstition. " Let us establish 
 schools of morality," said he, "un- 
 fettered by religious tenets. Let us 
 give these children a system of pure 
 morals before they adopt any religion " 
 The ancient regime of which Paine 
 spoke as obnoxious was that of kings 
 and priests. That was the popular 
 way he had of nuiking any thing ob- 
 
AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 515 
 
 noxious that he wished to destroy. 
 Now, if he had merely wislied to get 
 rid of the dogmas which he says were 
 established by kings and jtriests, if he 
 had no desire to abohsh the Christian 
 religion itself, he could have thus ex- 
 pressed himself: " Let us rid ourselves 
 of the errors of kings and priests, and 
 plant morality on the plain text of the 
 Christian religion, with the simplest 
 forms of religious worship." 
 
 I do not intend to leave this part of 
 the cause, however, without a still more 
 distinct statement of the objections to 
 this scheme of instruction. This is 
 due, I think, to the subject and to the 
 occasion; and I trust I shall not be 
 considered presumptuous, or as trench- 
 ing upon the duties which properly be- 
 long to another profession. But I deem 
 it due to the cause of Christianity to 
 take up the notions of this sclieme of 
 ]Vlr. Girard, and show how mistaken is 
 the idea of calling it a charity. In the 
 first place, then, I say, this scheme is 
 derogatory to Christianity, because it 
 rejects Christianity from the education 
 of youth, by rejecting its teachers, by re- 
 jecting the ordinary agencies of instilling 
 the Christian religion into the minds 
 of the young. I do not say that, in or- 
 der to make this a charity, there should 
 be a positive provision for the teaching of 
 Christianity, although, as I have already 
 observed, I take that to be the rule in 
 an English couit of equity. But I need 
 not, in this case, claim the whole bene- 
 fit of that rule. I say it is derogatory, 
 becau-se there is a positive rejection of 
 Christianity; because it rejects the ordi- 
 nary means and agencies of Christianity. 
 lie who rejects the ordinary means of 
 accomplishing an end, means to defeat 
 that end itself, or else he has no mean- 
 ing. And this is true, although the 
 means originally be means of human 
 appointment, and not attaching to or 
 resting on any higher authority. 
 
 For example, if the New Testament 
 had contained a set of principles of 
 morality and religion, without refer- 
 ence to the means by which those prin- 
 ciples were to be e.stablished, and if in 
 the course of time a system of means 
 
 had sprung up, become identified with 
 the history of the world, become general, 
 sanctioned by continued use and custom, 
 then he who should reject those means 
 would design to reject, and would reject, 
 that morality and religion themselves. 
 
 This would be true in a case where 
 the end rested on divine authority, and 
 human agency devised and used the 
 means. But if the means themselves 
 be of divine authority also, then the 
 rejection of them is a direct rejection 
 of that authority. 
 
 Now, I suppose there is nothing in 
 the New Testament more clearly estab- 
 lished by the Author of Christianity, 
 than the appointment of a Christian 
 ministry. The world was to be evan 
 gelized, was to be brought out of dark 
 ness into light, by the influences of the 
 Christian religion, spread and propa- 
 gated by the instrumentality of man. 
 A Christian ministry was therefore ap- 
 pointed by the Author of the Christian 
 religion himself, and it stands on the 
 same authority as any other part of his 
 religion. When the lost sheep of the 
 house of Israel were to be brought to 
 the knowledge of Christianity, the dis- 
 ciples were commanded to go forth into 
 all the cities, and to preach " that the 
 kingdom of heaven is at hand." It 
 was added, that whosoever would not 
 receive tliem, nor hear their words, it 
 should be more tolerable for Sodom and 
 Gomorrha than for them. And after 
 his resurrection, in the appointment of 
 the great mission to the whole human 
 race, the Author of Christianity com- 
 manded his disciples that they should 
 " go into all the world, and preach the 
 Gospel to every creature." This was 
 one of his last commands; and one of 
 his last promises was the assurance, 
 " Lo, I am with you alway, even to 
 the end of the world!" I say, there- 
 fore, there is nothing set forth more au- 
 thentically in the New Testament than 
 the appointment of a Christian minis- 
 try; and he who does not believe tliis 
 does not and cannot believe the rest. 
 
 It is true that Cin-istian ministers, in 
 this age of the world, are selected in 
 different ways and different modes by 
 
51 G 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 different sects and denominations. But 
 there are, still, ministers of all sects and 
 denominations. Why should we shut 
 our eyes to the whole history of Chris- 
 tianity? Is it not the preaching of 
 ministers of the Gospel that has evan- 
 gelized the more civilized part of the 
 world? Why do we at this day enjoy 
 the lights and benefits of Christianity 
 ourselves? Do we not owe it to the 
 instrumentality of the Christian min- 
 istry? The ministers of Christianity, 
 departing from Asia Minor, traversing 
 Asia, Africa, and Europe, to Iceland, 
 Greenland, and the poles of the earth, 
 suffering all things, enduring all things, 
 holding all things, raising men every- 
 where from the ignorance of idol wor- 
 ship to the knowledge of the true God, 
 and everywhere bringing life and im- 
 mortality to light tlirough the Gospel, 
 have only been acting in obedience to 
 the Divine instruction; they were com- 
 manded to go forth, and they have gone 
 forth, and they still go forth. They 
 have sought, and they still seek, to be 
 able to preach the Gospel to every crea- 
 ture under the whole heaven. And 
 where was Christianity ever received, 
 where were its truths ever poured into 
 the human heart, where did its waters, 
 springing up into everlasting life, ever 
 burst forth, except in the track of a 
 Christian ministry? Did we ever hear 
 of an instance, does history record an 
 instance, of any part of the globe Chris- 
 tianized by lay preachers, or " lay teach- 
 ers "? And, descending from kingdoms 
 and empires to cities and countries, to 
 parishes and villages, do we not all 
 know, that wherever Christianity has 
 been carried, and wherever it has been 
 taught, by human agency, that agency 
 was the agency of ministers of the Gos- 
 pel? It is all idle, and a mockery, to 
 jnetend that any man has respect for 
 the Christian religion who yet derides, 
 reproaches, and stigmatizes all its min- 
 isters and teachers. It is all idle, it is 
 a mockery, and an insidt to common 
 sense, to maintain that a school for the 
 instruction of youth, from which Chris- 
 tian instruction by Christian teachers is 
 sedulously and rigorously shut out, is 
 
 not deistical and infidel both in its 
 purpose and in its tendency. 1 insist, 
 therefore, that this plan of education is, 
 in this respect, derogatory to Christian- 
 ity, in opjx)sition to it, and calculated 
 either to subvert or to supersede it. 
 
 In tlie next place, this scheme of edu- 
 cation is derogatory to Chiistianity, be- 
 cause it proceeds upon the presumption 
 that the Christian religion is not the 
 only true foundation, or any necessary 
 foundation, of morals. The ground 
 taken is, that religion is not necessary 
 to morality, that benevolence may bo 
 insured by habit, and that all the vir- 
 tues may flourish, and be safely left to 
 the chance of flourishing, without touch- 
 ing the waters of the living >pring of 
 religious responsibility. With him who 
 thinks thus, what can be the value of 
 the Ciiristian revelation? So the Chris- 
 tian world has not thought; for by tliat 
 Christian world, throughout its broadest 
 extent, it has been, and is, held as a 
 fundamental truth, that religion is the 
 only solid basis of morals, and that 
 moral instruction not resting on this 
 basis is only a building upon sand. 
 And at what age of the Christian era 
 have those who professed to teach the 
 Christian religion, or to believe in its 
 authority and importance, not insisted 
 on the ab.solute necessity of inculcating 
 its principles and its precepts upon the 
 minds of the young? In what age, by 
 what sect, where, when, by whom, has 
 religious truth been excluded from the 
 education of youth? Nowhere; never. 
 Everywhere, and at all times, it has 
 been, and is. regarded as essential. It 
 is of the essence, the vitality, of useful 
 instruction. From all this Air. Girard 
 dissents. His plan denies the necessity 
 and the propriety of religious instruc- 
 tion as a part of the education of youth. 
 He dissents, not only from all the senti- 
 ments of Christian mankind, from all 
 common conviction, and from the re- 
 sults of all experience, but he dissents 
 also from still higher authority, the 
 word of God itself. My learned friend 
 has referred, with propriety, to one of 
 the commands of the Decalogue; but 
 there is another, a fi:-st commandment. 
 
AND TUE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 517 
 
 and that is a precept of religion, and it 
 is in subordination to this that the 
 moral precepts of the Decalogue are 
 proclaimed. This first great command- 
 ment teaches man (hat tiiere is one, and 
 only one, great First Cause, one, and 
 only one, proper object of hunum wor- 
 ship. This is the great, the ever fresh, 
 the overflowing fountain of all revealed 
 truth. ^Vithout it, human life is a des- 
 ert, of no known termination on any 
 side, but shut in on all sides by a dark 
 and impenetrable horizon. Without the 
 light of this truth, man knows nothing 
 of his origin, and nothing of his end. 
 And when the Decalogue was delivered 
 to the Jews, with this great announce- 
 ment and command at its head, what 
 said the inspired lawgiver? that it should 
 be kept from children ? that it should 
 be reserved as a communication fit only 
 for mature age ? Far, far otherwise. 
 " And these words, which I command 
 thee this day, shall be in thy heart. 
 And thou shalt teach them diligently 
 unto thy children, and shall talk of 
 them when thou sittest in thy house, 
 and when thou walkest by the way, 
 when thou liest down, and when thou 
 risest up." 
 
 There is an authority still more im- 
 posing and awful. When little children 
 were brought into the presence of the 
 Son of God, his disciples proposed to 
 send them away; but he said, "Suffer 
 little children to come unto me." Unto 
 me ; he did not send them first for les- 
 sons iu morals to the schools of the 
 Pharisees, or to the unbelieving Saddu- 
 cees, nor to read the precepts and les- 
 sons phylacteried on the garments of the 
 Jewish priesthood; he said nothing of 
 different creeds or clashing doctrines; 
 but he opened at once to the youthful 
 mind the everlasting fountain of living 
 waters, the only source of eternal truths: 
 " Suffer little children to come unto 
 me." And that injunction is of perpet- 
 ual obligation. It addresses itself to- 
 day with the same earnestness and the 
 same authority which attended its fiist 
 utterance to the Christian world. It is 
 of force everywhere, and at all times. 
 It extends to the ends of the earth, it 
 
 will reach to the end of time, always 
 and everywhere sounding in the ears of 
 men, with an emi)hasis which no repeti- 
 tion can weaken, and with an authority 
 which notlnng can sujiersede: " Suffc 
 little children to come unto me." 
 
 And not only my heart and my judg- 
 ment, my belief and my conscience, in- 
 struct me that this great precept should 
 be obeyed, but the idea is so sacred, the 
 solemn thoughts connected with it so 
 crowd upon me, it is so utterly at va- 
 riance with this system of philosophical 
 morality which we have heard advocated, 
 that I stand and speak here in fear of 
 being influenced by my feelings to ex- 
 ceed the proper line of my professional 
 duty. Go thy way at this time, is the 
 language of philosophical morality, and 
 I will send for tliee at a more convenient 
 season. This is the language of Mr. 
 Girard in his will. In this there is 
 neither religion nor reason. 
 
 The earliest and the most urgent in 
 tellectual want of human nature is the 
 knowledge of its origin, its duty, and 
 its destiny. "Whence am L what am 
 I, and what is before me?" This is 
 the cry of the human soid, so soon as it 
 raises its contemplation above visible, 
 material things. 
 
 "When an intellectual being finds him- 
 self on this earth, as soon as the facul- 
 ties of reason operate, one of the first 
 inquiries of his mind is, " Shall I be 
 here always?" "Shall I live here for 
 ever?" And reasoning from what he 
 sees daily occurring to others, he learns 
 to a certainty that his state of being 
 nmst one day be changed. I do not 
 mean to deny, that it may be true that 
 he is created with this consciousness; 
 but whether it be consciousness, or the 
 result of his reasoning faculties, man 
 soon learns that he must die. And of 
 all sentient beings, he alone, so far as 
 we can judge, attains to this knowledge. 
 His Maker has made him capable of 
 learning this. Before he knows his ori- 
 gin and destiny, lie knows that he is to 
 die. Tlien comes that most urgent and 
 solemn demand for light that ever pro- 
 ceeded, or can proceed, from the pro- 
 found and anxious broodings of tha 
 
i>s8 
 
 THE CIIRISTL\:N MINISTRY" 
 
 human soul. It is stated, Aivith wonder- 
 ful force and beauty, in that incom- 
 parable composition, the book of Job: 
 "For there is hope of a tree, if it be 
 cut down, that it will sprout again, and 
 tliat the tender branch tliereof will not 
 cease ; that, through the scent of water, 
 it w ill bud, and bring forth boughs like 
 a plant. But if a man die, shall he lice 
 again?" And that question nothing 
 but God, and the religion of God, can 
 solve. Religion does solve it, and 
 teaches every man that he is to live 
 again, and that the duties of this life 
 have reference to the life which is to 
 come. And hence, since the introduc- 
 tion of Christianity, it has been the 
 duty, as it has been the effort, of the 
 great and the good, to sanctify human 
 knowledge, to bring it to the fount, and 
 to baptize learning into Christianity; to 
 gather up all its productions, its earliest 
 and its latest, its blossoms and its fruits, 
 and lay them all upon the altar of relig- 
 ion and virtue. 
 
 Another important point involved in 
 this question is, AVhat becomes of the 
 Christian Sabbath, in a school thus es- 
 tabli.shed? I do not mean to say that 
 this stands exactly on the same authori- 
 ty as the Chi'istian religion, but I mean 
 to say that the observance of the Sab- 
 bath is a part of Christianity in all its 
 forms. All Christians admit the observ- 
 ance of the Sabbath. All admit that 
 there is a Lord's day, although there 
 may be a difference in the belief as to 
 which is the right day to be observed. 
 Now, I say that in this institution, under 
 ISir. Girard's scheme, the ordinary ob- 
 servance of the Sabbath could not take 
 place, because the ordinary means of 
 observing it are excluded. I know that 
 I shall be told here, also, that lay teach- 
 ers would come in again; and I say 
 again, in reply, tliat, where the ordinary 
 means of attaining an end are excludeil, 
 the intention is to exclude the end itself. 
 There can be no Sabbath in this college, 
 there can be no religious observance of 
 the Lord's day; for there are no means 
 for attaining that end. It will be said, 
 that the cliildren wovild be permitted to 
 go out. There is nothing seen of this 
 
 permission in "Mr. Girard's will. And 
 I sa}- again, that it would be just as 
 much opposed to Mr. Girard's whole 
 scheme to allow these children to go out 
 and attend places of public wciship on 
 the Sabbath day, as it would be to have 
 ministers of religion to preach to them 
 within the walL?; because, if they go 
 out to hear preaching, they will hear just 
 as much about religious controversies, 
 and clashing doctrines, and more, than 
 if appointed preachers officiated in the 
 college. His object, as he states, was to 
 keep their minds free from all religious 
 doctrines and sects, and he would just 
 as much defeat his ends by sending them 
 out as by having religious instruction 
 within. Where, then, are these little 
 childien to go? "Where can they go to 
 learn the truth, to reverence the Sab- 
 bath? They are far from their friends, 
 they have no one to accompany them to 
 any place of worship, no one to show 
 them the right from the wrong comse ; 
 their minds must be kept clear from all 
 bias on the subject, and they are just as 
 far from the ordinary observance of the 
 Sabbath as if there were no Sabbath day 
 at all. And where there is no observ- 
 ance of the Christian Sabbath there will 
 of coui'se be no public worship of God. 
 
 In connection with this subject I will 
 observe, that there has been recently 
 held a large convention of clergymen 
 and laymen in Columbus, Ohio, to lead 
 the minds of the Christian public to the 
 importance of a more particular observ- 
 ance of the Christian Sabbath; and I 
 will read, as part of my argument, an 
 extract from their address, which bears 
 with peculiar force upon this case. 
 
 "It is alike obvious that the SabbatL 
 exerts its salutary power by making tlie 
 ])()l)uhition aequaintfil witli tlie beinj;, pur 
 fections, and laws of God; witli our lela- 
 lions to iiini as his creatures, and our obli- 
 gations to him as rational, accountaiile 
 subjects, and with our character as sinners, 
 for whom iiis mercy has provided a Saviour; 
 unikr wliose government we live to be re- 
 strained from sin ami reconciled to God, 
 and tittc'd by liis word and spirit for the in- 
 heritance above. 
 
 " It is by tlie reiterated instruction and 
 impression which the Sabbath imparts to 
 
AND THE RLLIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 519 
 
 the population of a nation, by the moral 
 principle wiiieh it forms, by tiie conscience 
 wliich it maintains, by tlie liabits of uutiiod, 
 cleanliness and industry it creates, by tlie 
 rest and renovated vijjor it bestows on ex- 
 hausted human nature, by the lenjjtliened 
 life and higher health it affords, by the 
 holiness it irspires, and cheering hopes of 
 heaven, and the protection and favor of 
 God, which its observance insures, that the 
 Sabbatii is rendered the moral conservator 
 of nations. 
 
 " riie omnipresent influence the Sabbath 
 exerts, however, by no secret charm or 
 compendious action, upon masses of un- 
 thinking minds ; but by arresting the 
 stream of worldly thoughts, interests, and 
 affections, stopping the din of business, un- 
 lading the mind of its cares and responsi- 
 bilities, and tiie body of its burdens, while 
 God speaks to men, and they attend, and 
 hear, and fear, and learn to do his will. , 
 
 " You might as well put out the sun, 
 and think to enlighten the world with 
 tapers, destroy the attraction of gravity, 
 and think to wield the universe by human 
 powers, as to extinguish the moral illumina- 
 tion of the Sabbath, and break this glori- 
 ous main-spring of the moral government 
 of God." 
 
 And I would ask, Would any Christian 
 man consider it desirable for his oi-phan 
 children, after his death, to find refuge 
 within this asylum, under all the circum- 
 stances and influences which will necessa- 
 rily surround its inmates? Are there, or 
 will there be, any Christian parents who 
 would desire that then- children sliould 
 be placed in this school, to be for twelve 
 years exposed to the pernicious influ- 
 ences which must be brouglit to bear on 
 their minds? I very much doubt if there 
 is any Christian father who hears me this 
 day, and I am quite sure that tliere is 
 no Christian mother, who, if called upon 
 to lie down on the bed of death, al- 
 though sure to leave her children as poor 
 as children can be left, who would not 
 rather trust them, nevertheless, to the 
 Christian charity of the world, however 
 uncertain it has been said to be, than 
 place them where their physical wants 
 and comforts would be abundantly at- 
 tended to, but away from the solaces 
 and consolations, tlie hopes and the 
 grace, of the Christian religion. She 
 
 would rather trust them to the mercy 
 and kindness of that spirit, which, when 
 it has nothing else left, gives a cup of 
 cold water in the name of a disciple; to 
 that spirit which has its origin in the 
 fountain of all good, and of which we 
 have on record an example the most 
 beautiful, the most touching, the most 
 intensely affecting, that the world's 
 history contains, I mean the offering of 
 the poor widow, who threw her two 
 mites into the treasury. " And he 
 looked up, and saw the rich men cast 
 ing their gifts into the treasury; and he 
 saw also a certain poor widow casting in 
 thither two mites. And he said, Of a 
 truth I say unto you, that this poor 
 W'idow hath cast in more than they all ; 
 for all these have, of their abundance, 
 cast in unto the offerings of God: but 
 she of her penury hath cast in all the 
 living that she had. " What more ten- 
 der, more solemnly affecting, more pro- 
 foundly pathetic, tlian this charity, this 
 offering to God, of a farthing! We 
 know nothing of her name, her family, 
 or her tribe. We only know that she was 
 a poor woman, and a widow, of whom 
 there is nothing left upon record but this 
 sublimely simple story, that, when the 
 rich came to cast their proud offerings into 
 the treasury, this poor woman came also, 
 and cast in her two mites, which made a 
 farthing! And that example, thus made 
 the subject of divine commendation, has 
 been read, and told, and gone abroad 
 everywhere, and sunk deep into a hun- 
 dred millions of hearts, since the com- 
 mencement of the Christian era, and has 
 done more good than could be accom- 
 plished by a thousand marble palaces, 
 because it was charity mingled with true 
 benevolence, given in the fear, the love, 
 the sei-vice, and honor of God ; because 
 it was charity, that had its origin in re- 
 ligious feeling; because it was a gift to 
 the honor of God ! 
 
 Cases have come before the courts, of 
 bequests, in last wills, made or given to 
 God, without any more specific direc- 
 tion; and these bequests have been re- 
 garded as creating charitable uses. But 
 can that be truly called a charity which 
 flies in the face of all the laws of God 
 
520 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 aud all the usages of Chi-btian man? I 
 arraign no man for mixing up a love of 
 distinction and notoriety with his chari- 
 ties. I blame not ]Mr. Girard because 
 he desired to raise a splendid marble 
 palace in the neighborhood of a beauti- 
 ful city, that should endure for ages, and 
 transmit liis name and fame to posterity. 
 But his school of learning is not to be 
 fahied, because it has not the cliasten- 
 ing iuthiences of true religion; because 
 it has no fragrance of tlie spirit of 
 Christianity. It is not a charity, for it 
 has not that which gives to a charity for 
 education its chief value. It will, there- 
 fore, soothe the heart of no Christian 
 parent, dying in poverty and distress, 
 that those who owe to him their being 
 may be led, aud fed, and clothed by 
 ^Ir. Girard's bounty, at the expense of 
 being excluded from all the means of 
 religious instruction afforded to other 
 childien, and shut up through the most 
 interesting period of their lives in a sem- 
 inary w ithout religion, and with moral 
 sentiments as cold as its own marble 
 walls. 
 
 I now come to the consideration of 
 the second part of this clause in the will, 
 that is to say, the reasons assigned by 
 iMr. Girard for making these restrictions 
 with regard to the ministers of religion; 
 and I say that these are much more de- 
 rogatory to Christianity than the main 
 provision itself, excluding them. He 
 says that there are such a multitude of 
 sects aud such diversity of opiuion, that 
 he will exclude all religion and aU its 
 ministers, in order to keep the minds of 
 the children free from clashing contro- 
 versies. Now, does not this tend to sub- 
 vert all belief in the utility of teaching 
 the Christian religion to youth at all? 
 Certainly, it is a broad and bold denial 
 of such utility. To say that the evil re- 
 sulting to youth from the differences of 
 sects and creeds overbalances all the 
 benefits which the best education can 
 give tliem, what is this but to say that 
 the branches of the tree of religious 
 knowledge are so twisted, and twined, 
 and commingled, and all run so much 
 into aud over each other, that there is 
 
 therefore no remedy but to lay the axe 
 at the root of the tree itself? It means 
 that, and nothing less ! Xow, if there 
 be any thmg more derogatory to the 
 Christian religion than this, I should 
 like to know what it is. In all this we 
 see the attack upon religion itself, made 
 on its ministers, its institutions, aud its 
 diversities. And that is the objection 
 urged by all the lower and more vul- 
 gar schools of infidelity throughout the 
 world. In all these schools, called 
 schools of Kationalism m Germany, 
 SociaUsm in England, and by various 
 other names in various countries which 
 they infest, this is the universal cant. 
 The first step of all these philosophical 
 moralists and regenerators of the human 
 race is to attack the agency through 
 which religion and Christianity are ad- 
 ministered to man. But in this tliere is 
 nothing new or original. "We find the 
 same mode of attack and remark in 
 Paine's "Age of Reason." At page 
 33G he says: " The Bramin, the follower 
 of Zoroaster, the Jew, tlie ^Mahometan, 
 the Clmrch of Home, the Greek Church, 
 the Protestant Church, split into .sev- 
 eral hundred contradictory sectaries, 
 preaching, in some instances, damna- 
 tion against each other, all cry out. 
 ' Our holy religion I ' " 
 
 AVe find the same \'iew in Volney's 
 "Ruins of Empires." ^Ir. Volney ar- 
 rays in a sort of semicircle the diii'erent 
 and conflicting religions of the world. 
 "And first," says he, " siUTomided by 
 a group in various fantastic dresses, that 
 confused mixture of violet, red, white, 
 black, and speckled garments, with 
 heads shaved, with tonsures, or with 
 short hairs, with red hats, scjuare bon- 
 nets, pointed mitres, or long beards, is 
 the standard of the Roman Pontiif. On 
 his right you see the Greek PontilT, and 
 on the left are the standards of two re- 
 cent chiefs (Lutlier and Calvin), who, 
 shaking off a yoke that had become ty- 
 rannical, had raised altar against altar in 
 their reform, and wrested half of Europe 
 from the Pope. Beliind these are the 
 subaltern sects, subdivided from the 
 principal divisions. The Nestorians, 
 Eutychiaus, Jacobites, Iconoclasts, Ana- 
 
AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF TILE YOUNG. 
 
 521 
 
 baptists, Presl)yteri;iiis, Wickliflites, Osi- 
 andi'ians, ^lauiclicaus, I'ietists, Adam- 
 ites, the Coiitemplatives, the Quakers, 
 the Weepers, and a hundred others, all 
 of distinct parties, persecuting when 
 strong, tolerant when weak, hating each 
 other in the name of the God of peace, 
 forming such an exclusive heaven in a 
 religion of universal charity, damning 
 each other to i)ains without end in a 
 future state, and realizing in this world 
 tiie imaginary liell of the other." 
 
 Can it be doubted for an instant that 
 sentiments like these are derogatoiy to 
 the Cliristian religion"^ And yet on 
 grounds and I'easons exactly t/tese, not 
 like these, but exactly these, Mr. Gi- 
 rard founds his excuse for excluding 
 Christianity and its ministers from his 
 school. lie is a tame copyist, and has 
 only raised marble walls to perpetuate 
 and disseminate the principles of I'aine 
 and of Volney. It has been said that 
 Mr. Girard was in a difficulty ; that he 
 was the judge and disposer of his own 
 property. We have nothing to do with 
 ills difficulties. It has been said that he 
 must have done as he did do, because 
 there could be no agreement otherwise. 
 Agreement? among whom? about what? 
 He was at liberty to do what he pleased 
 with his own. He had to considt no 
 one as to what he shoidd do in the mat- 
 ter. And if he had wished to establish 
 such a charity as might obtain the es- 
 pecial favor of the courts of law% lie had 
 only to frame it on principles not hos- 
 tile to the religion of tlie comitry. 
 
 But the learned gentleman went even 
 further than this, and to an extent that 
 I regretted; he said that there was as 
 much dispute about the Bible as about 
 any thing else in tlie world. Xo, thank 
 God, that is not the case ! 
 
 Mu. BiNNET. Tlie disputes about the 
 meaning of words and passages ; you will 
 admit that ? 
 
 Well, there is a dispute about the 
 translation of certain words ; but if this 
 be true, there is just as much dispute 
 about it out of Mr. Girard's institution 
 as there would be in it. And if this 
 plan is to be advocated and sustained, 
 
 why does not evei-y man keep his chil- 
 dren from attending all places of public 
 worship until they are over eighteen 
 years of age? lie says that a prudent 
 parent keeps his child from the influence 
 of sectarian doctrines, by which I sup- 
 pose hhn to mean those tenets that are 
 opposed to his own. Well, [ do not 
 know but what tliat plan is as likely to 
 make bigots as it is to make any tiling 
 else. I grant that the mind of youth 
 should be kept pliant, and free from all 
 undue and erroneous influences ; that it 
 shoidd have as much play as is consist- 
 ent with prudence; but put it where it 
 can obtain the elementary principles of 
 religious truth ; at any rate, those broad 
 and general precepts and principles 
 wliicli are admitted by all Christians. 
 But here in this scheme of JNlr. Girard, 
 all sects and all creeds are denounced. 
 And would not a prudent father rather 
 send his child where he could get in- 
 struction under any form of the Chris- 
 tian religion, than where he could get 
 none at all? There are many mstances 
 of institutions, professing one leading 
 creed, educating youths of different sects. 
 The Baptist college in Rhode Island re- 
 ceives and educates youths of all relig- 
 ious sects and all beliefs. The colleges 
 all over New England differ in certain 
 minor points of belief, and yet that ia 
 held to be no ground for excluding youth 
 with other forms of belief, and other re- 
 ligious views and sentiments. 
 
 But this objection to the multitude 
 and differences of sects is but the old 
 story, the old infidel argimient. It is 
 notorious that there are certain g-eat 
 religious truths which are admitted and 
 believed by all Christians. All believe 
 in the existence of a God. All believe 
 in the immortality of the soul. AU be- 
 lieve in the responsibility, in another 
 world, for our conduct in this. All be- 
 lieve in the divine authority of the New 
 Testament. Dr. Paley says that a single 
 word from the Xew Testament shuts up 
 the mouth of human questioning, and 
 excludes all human reasoning. And 
 cannot all tliese great truths be taught to 
 children without their minds being per- 
 plexed with clashing doctrines and sac- 
 
COrt 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 tarian controversies? ^lost certainly 
 they can. 
 
 And, to compare secular with relig- 
 ious matters, what would become of the 
 organization of society, what would he- 
 roine of man as a social being, in con- 
 nection with the social system, if we 
 applied this mode of reasoning to him 
 in his social relations'? We have a con- 
 stitutional government, about the pow- 
 ers, and limitations, and uses of which 
 there is a vast amoimt of differences of 
 belief. Your honors have a body of 
 laws, now before you, in relation to 
 which dilferences of opinion, almost in- 
 numerable, are daily spread before the 
 courts ; in all these we see clashing doc- 
 trines and opinions advanced daily, to 
 as great an extent as in the religious 
 world. 
 
 Afiply the reasoning advanced by ]\Ir. 
 Girard to human institutions, and you 
 will tear them all up by the root; a,s you 
 would inevitably tear all divine institu- 
 tions up ^)y the root, if such reasoning 
 is to prevail. At the meeting of the first 
 Congress there was a doubt in the minds 
 of many of the propriety of opening the 
 session with prayer; and the reason as- 
 signed was, as here, the great diversity 
 of opinion and religious belief. At 
 ^ength Mr. Samuel Adams, with his 
 'ray hairs hanging about his shoulders, 
 ind witli an impressive venerableness 
 now seldom to be met with, (I suppose 
 owing to the difference of habits,) rose 
 in tliat assembly, and, with the air of a 
 perfect Puritan, said that it did not be- 
 come men, professing to be Christian 
 men, who had come together for solemn 
 deliberation in the hour of their extrem- 
 ity, to say tliat there was so wide a 
 difference in their religious belief, that 
 th^y could not, as one man, bow tlie 
 ki ee in prayer to the Almighty, whose 
 advice and assistance they hoped to ob- 
 tain. Independent as he was, and an 
 enemy to all prelacy a,s he was known to 
 be, he moved that the Rev. Mr. Duohd, 
 of the Episcopal Church, should address 
 the Throne of Grace in prayer. And 
 John Adams, in a letter to his wife, 
 says that he never saw a more moving 
 spectacle. Mr. Duche read the Episco- 
 
 pal sei-vice of the Chuic/i ol England, 
 and then, as if moved by the occasion, he 
 broke out into extemporaneous prayer 
 And those men, who were then about to 
 resort to force to obtain their rights, 
 were moved to tears ; and floods of tears, 
 Mr. Adams says, ran down the cheeks 
 of the pacific Quakers who formed part 
 of that most interesting assembly. De- 
 pend upon it, where there is a spirit of 
 Christianity, there is a spirit which 
 rises above forms, above ceremonies, in- 
 dependent of sect or creed, and the con- 
 troversies of clashing doctrines. 
 
 The consolations of religion can never 
 be administered to any of these sick and 
 dying children in this college. It is said, 
 indeed, that a poor, dying child can be 
 carried out beyond the walls of the 
 school. He can be carried out to a hos- 
 telry, or hovel, and there receive those 
 rites of the Christian religion which can- 
 not be performed within those walls, 
 even in his dying hour! Is not all this 
 shockiiig? What a stricture is it upon 
 this whole scheme ! AVTiat an utter con- 
 demnation ! A dpng youth cannot re- 
 ceive religious solace withm this semi- 
 nary of learning! 
 
 But, it is a.sked, what could Mr. Gi- 
 rard have doneV He could have done, as 
 luis been done in Lombardy by the Em- 
 peror of Austria, as my learned friend 
 has informed us, where, on a large scale, 
 the principle is established of teaching 
 the elementary principles of the Chris- 
 tian religion, of enforcing human duties 
 by divine obligations, and carefully ab- 
 staining in all cases from interfering 
 with sects or the inculcation of sectarian 
 doctrines. How have they done in the 
 .>^ch(X)ls of New England? There, as far 
 as 1 am acquainted with them, the great 
 elements of Christian truth are tauglit 
 in every school. The Scriptures are 
 read, their authcrity taught and en- 
 forced, their evidences explained, and 
 prayers usually offered. 
 
 The truth is, that those who really 
 value Christianity, and believe in its im- 
 ]K>rtance, not only to the sjiiritual wel- 
 fare of man, but to the safety and ]iros- 
 perity of huinan society, rejoice that in 
 its revelations and its teachings there is 
 
AND THE KKLIGlOrS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 52a 
 
 BO much which mounts above contro- 
 versy, and stands on universal acknowl- 
 edgment. While many tilings about it 
 are disputed or are dark, they still iihiinly 
 see its foundation, and its main pillars; 
 and they beliold in it a sacred structure, 
 rising up to the heavens. They wish 
 .'.ts general principles, and all its great 
 truths, to be spread over the whole earth. 
 But those who do not value Christianity, 
 nor believe in its iniportance to society 
 or individuals, cavil about sects and 
 schisms, and ring monotonous changes 
 upon the shallow and so often refuted 
 objections founded on alleged variety of 
 discordant creeds and clashing doctrines. 
 I shall close this part of my argument 
 by reading extracts from an English 
 writer, one of the most profound think- 
 ers of the age, a friend of reformation 
 in the government and laws, John Fos- 
 ter, the friend and associate of Robert 
 Hall. Looking forward to the abolition 
 of the present dynasties of the Old 
 "World, and desirous to see how the 
 order and welfare of society is to be pre- 
 served in the absence of present conser- 
 vative principles, he says ; — 
 
 " Undoubtedly the zealous friends of pop- 
 ular education account knowledge valuable 
 absolutely, as being the apprehension of 
 things as they are ; a prevention of delu- 
 eions ; and so far a fitness for right voli- 
 tions. But they consider religion (besides 
 beuig itself the primary and hifinitely the 
 most important part of knowledge) as a 
 principle indispensable for securhig the full 
 benefit of all the rest. It is desired, and 
 endeavored, that the understandmgs of 
 these opening minds may be taken i)osses- 
 eion of b}" just and solemn ideas of their 
 relation to ths Eternal Almighty Being; 
 that they may be tauglit to apprehend it as 
 an awful reality, that they are perpetually 
 under his inspection ; and, as a certainty, 
 that tliey nnist at length a])pear before him 
 in judgment, and tuid in another life the 
 consequences of what they are in spirit and 
 conduct here. It is to be impressed on 
 tliem, that his will is the supreme law, that 
 his declarations are the most momentous 
 truth known on earth, and his favor and 
 condenniation the greatest good and evil. 
 Under an as"endency of this divine wisdom 
 It is, tliat their discipline in ary other 
 knowledije is designed to be conducted; so 
 
 that nothing in tlie mode of thc^ir instruc- 
 tion may have a tendency contrary to it, 
 and every thing be taught in a manner rec- 
 ognizing the relation with it, as far as 
 shall consist with a natural, imforced way 
 of keeping the relation in view. Thus it is 
 sought to be secured, that, as the pupil's 
 mind grows stronger, and umlti])lies its re- 
 sources, and he therefore has necessarily 
 more power and means for what is wrong, 
 there may be luminously presented to hini^ 
 as if celestial eyes visibly beamed upon 
 him, the most solemn ideas that can enforce 
 what is right. 
 
 " Such IS the discipline meditated for 
 preparing the subordinate classes to pursue 
 their individual welfare, and act their part 
 as members of the community. . . . 
 
 " All this is to be taught, in many in- 
 stances directly, in others by reference for 
 confirmation, from the Holy Scriptures, 
 from which authority will also be impressed, 
 all the while, the principles of religion 
 And religion, while its grand concern is with 
 the state of the soul towards God and eternal 
 interests, yet takes every principle and rule 
 of morals under its peremptory sanction ; 
 making the primary obligation and responsi- 
 bility be towards God, of every thing that 
 is a duty witii respect to men. So that, 
 with the subjects of this education, the 
 sense of propriety shall be conscience; the 
 consideration of how they ought to be regu- 
 lated in their conduct as a part of the com- 
 munity shall be the recollection that their 
 Master in heaven dictates tlie laws of tliat 
 conduct, and will judicially hold them ame- 
 nable for every part of it. 
 
 " And is not a discipline thus addressed 
 to the purpose of fixing religious principles 
 in ascendency, as far as that difficult object 
 is within the power of discipline, and of in- 
 fusing a salutary tincture of them into 
 whatever else is taught, the right way to 
 bring up citizens faithful to all that de- 
 serves fidelity in the social compact ? . . . 
 
 " Lay hold on the myriads of juvenile 
 spirits before they have time to grow up 
 through ignorance, into a reckless hostility 
 to social order ; train them to sense and 
 good morals ; inculcate the principles of re- 
 ligion, sim])ly and solemnly, as religion, as 
 a thing directly of divine dictation, and not 
 as if its authority were cliiefiy in virtue of 
 human institutions; let the higher orders, 
 generally, make it evident to the multitude 
 that they are desirous to raise them in 
 value, and promote their happiness ; and 
 then, whatever the demands of the oeople &t 
 
5-24 
 
 THE CIIRISTLVN MINISTRT 
 
 a l)o(ly, thu» iinpioving in understanding 
 and sense of justice, shall come to be, and 
 whatever modification their preponderance 
 may ultimately enforce on the great social 
 arrangements, it will be infallibly certain 
 that there never can be a love of disorder, 
 an insolent anarch}-, a prevaiUng spirit of 
 revenge and devastation. Such a conduct 
 of the ascendent ranks would, in this na- 
 tion at least, secure that, as long as the 
 world lasts, there never would be any 
 formidable conmiotion, or violent sudden 
 dianges. All those modifications of the 
 national economy to which an improving 
 people would aspire, and would deserve to 
 obtain, would be gradually accomplished, in 
 a manner by which no party would be 
 wronged, and all would be the happier." i 
 
 I not only read this for the excellence 
 of its sentiments and their application 
 to the subject, but because they are the 
 results of the profound meditations of a 
 man who is dealing with popular igno- 
 rance. Desirous of, and expecting, a 
 great change in the social system of the 
 Old World, he is anxious to discover 
 that conservative principle by which so- 
 ciety can be kept together when crowns 
 and mitres shall have no more influence. 
 And he says that the only conservative 
 principle nnist be, and is, religion! 
 the authority of God! his revealed will! 
 and the influence of the teaching of the 
 ministers of Christianity I 
 
 Mr. Webster here stated that he would, 
 on Monday, bring forward certain refer- 
 ences and legal points bearing on this view 
 of the case. 
 
 The court then adjourned. 
 
 SECOND DAY. 
 
 The seven judges all took their seats at 
 eleven o'clock, and the court was opened. 
 
 Mr. Binney observed to the court, that 
 he had omitted to notice, in his argument, 
 that, in regard to the statutes of Uniformity 
 and Toleration in England, whilst the Jew- 
 ish Talmuds for the propagation of Juda- 
 ism alone were not sustained by those stat- 
 utes, yet the Jewish Talmuds for the main- 
 tenance of the poor were sustained thereb}'. 
 And the decisions show that, where a gift 
 hail for its object the maintenanie and edu- 
 cation of poor Jewish children, the statutes 
 
 1 Foster's Essay on the Evils of Popular 
 Igno-aucc. Section IV. 
 
 sustained the devise. In proof of this he 
 quoted 1 Ambler, by Blunt, p. 228, case of 
 De Costa, &c. Also, the case of Jacobs v. 
 Gomperte, in the notes. Also, in the notes, 
 2 Swanston, p. 487, same case of De Costa, 
 &a Also, 7 Vesey, p. 423, case of Mo Catto 
 V. Lucardo. Also, Sheppard, p. 107, and 
 Boyle, p. 4o. 
 
 Another case was that of a bequest given 
 to an object abroad, and in the decision the 
 Master of the Rolls considered that relig- 
 ious instruction was not a necessary part of 
 education. See, also, the case of The Attor- 
 ney-General V. The Dean and Canons of 
 Christ Church, Jacobs, p. 485. 
 
 Mr. Binney then quoted from Noah Web- 
 ster the djL'finition of the word " tenets," to 
 show that Mr. Webster did not give the 
 right definition when he said that " tenets " 
 meant "religion." 
 
 Mr. Webster then rose and said : — 
 
 The arguments of ray learned friend, 
 may it please your honors, in relation to 
 the Jewish laws as tolerated by the 
 statutes, go to maintain my very propo- 
 sition ; that is, that no school for the in- 
 struction of youth in any .system which 
 is in any way derogatory to the Chris- 
 tian religion, or for the teaching of doc- 
 trines that are in any way contrary to 
 the Chri.^tian religion, is, or ever was, 
 regarded .us a charity by the courts. It 
 is true that the statutes of Toleration re- 
 garded a devise for the maintenance of 
 poor Jewish children, to give them food 
 and raiment and lodging, as a clnxrity. 
 But a devise for the teaching of the Jew- 
 ish religion to poor children, that should 
 come into the Com-t of Chancery, wouM 
 not be regarded as a charity, or entitled 
 to any peculiar privileges from the court. 
 
 When I stated to your honors, in the 
 course of my argument on .Saturday, that 
 all denominations of Christians had some 
 mode or juovision for the appointmi'iit of 
 teachers of Christianity amongst them, 
 I meant to have said something about 
 the Quakers. Although we know that 
 the teachers among them come into their 
 oltice in a somewhat peculiar manner, 
 yet there are preachers and teacliers of 
 Christianity provided in that peculiar 
 body, notwithstanding its objection to 
 the mode of appointing teachers and 
 preachers by other Christi in sects. The 
 
AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 r^-' 
 
 25 
 
 place or character of a Quaker preacher 
 is ail office and appointment as well 
 known as that of a preacher among any 
 other denomination of Chris-tians. 
 
 I have heretofore argued to show that 
 the Christian religion, its general prin- 
 ciples, must ever be regarded among us 
 as the foundation of civil society; and I 
 have thus far confined my remarks to 
 the tendency and effect of the scheme of 
 ]\Ir. Girard (if carried out) upon the 
 Christian religion. But I will go far- 
 ther, and say that this school, this scheme 
 or system, in its tendencies and effects, 
 is opposed to all religions, of every kind. 
 I will not now enter into a controversy 
 with my learned friend about the word 
 " tenets," whether it signify opinions 
 or dogmas, or whatever you please. Re- 
 ligious tenets, I take it, and I suppose 
 it will be generally conceded, mean re- 
 ligious opinions; and if a youth has ar- 
 rived at the age of eighteen, and has 
 no religious tenets, it is very plain that 
 he has no religion. I do not care 
 whether you call them dogmas, tenets, 
 or opinions. If the youth does not en- 
 tertain dogmas, tenets, or opinions, or 
 opinions, tenets, or dogmas, on relig- 
 ious subjects, then he has no religion at 
 all. And this strikes at a broader prin- 
 ciple than when you merely look at this 
 school in its effect upon Christianity 
 alone. We will suppose the case of a 
 youth of eighteen, who has just left this 
 school, and has gone through an educa- 
 tion of philosophical morality, precisely 
 in accordance with the views and ex- 
 pressed wishes of the donor. lie comes 
 then into the world to choose his relig- 
 ious tpnets. The very next day, per- 
 haps, after leaving school, he conies into 
 a court of law to give testimony as a 
 witness. Sir, I protest that by such a 
 system he would be disfranchised. He 
 is asked, " A\Tiat is your religion?" 
 His reply is, " O, I have not yet chosen 
 any ; 1 am going to look round, and see 
 which suits me best." He is asked, 
 "Are you a Christian?" He replies, 
 " That involves religious tenets, and as 
 yet I have not been allowed to entertain 
 any." Again, " Do you believe in a 
 future state of rewards and punish- 
 
 ments? " And he answers, "That in- 
 volves sectarian controversies, which 
 have carefully been kept from me." 
 "Do you believe in the existence of a 
 God?" He answers, that there are 
 clashing doctrines involved in these 
 things, which he has been taught to have 
 nothing to do with; that the belief in 
 the existence of a God, being one of the 
 first questions in religion, he is shortly 
 about to think of that proposition. AMiy, 
 Sir, it is vain to talk about the destruc- 
 tive tendency of such a system ; to argue 
 irpon it is to insult the understanding of 
 every man ; it is mere, sheer, loic, ribald, 
 vulgar deism and infidelity I ^ It opposes 
 all that is in heaven, and all on earth 
 tliat is worth being on earth. It de- 
 stroys the connecting link between the 
 creature and the Creator ; it opposes that 
 great system of universal benevolence 
 and goodness that binds man to his 
 i\laker. No religion till he is eighteen: 
 What would be the condition of all our 
 families, of all our children, if religious 
 fathers and religious mothers were to 
 teach their sons and daughters no re- 
 ligious tenets till they were eighteen ? 
 "NMiat would become of their morals, 
 their character, their purity of heart and 
 life, their hope for time and eternity r 
 What would become of all those thou- 
 sand ties of sweetness, benevolence, love, 
 and Christian feeling, that now render 
 our young men and young maidens like 
 comely plants growing up by a stream- 
 let's side, — the graces and the gi'ace of 
 opening manhood, of blossoming wo- 
 manhood ? What w'ould become of all 
 that now renders the social circle lovely 
 and beloved ? "\Miat would become of 
 society itself ? How could it exist ? 
 And is that to be considered a charity 
 which strikes at the root of all this; 
 which subverts all the excellence and 
 the charms of social life; which lends 
 to destroy the very foundation and 
 frame-work of society, both in its 
 practices and in its opinions; which 
 subverts the whole decency, the whole 
 morality, as well as the whole Christiau- 
 
 1 The effect of this remarlv was almost elec- 
 tric, and some one in the court-room broke ouf 
 in applause. 
 
626 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 iiy and government, of society ? No, 
 Sir! no, Sir! 
 
 And here let me turn to the consider- 
 ation of the question, ^Vhat is an oath ? 
 I do not mean in the variety of defini- 
 tions that may be given to it as it ex- 
 isted and was practised in the time of 
 the Romans, but an oath as it exists at 
 present in our courts of law; as it is 
 founded on a degree of consciousness 
 that tiiete is a Power above us that will 
 reward our virtues and punish our vices. 
 "We all know that the doctrine of the 
 Engli:?h law is, that in the case of every 
 person who enters court as a witness, be 
 be Christian or Hindoo, there must be a 
 firm conviction on his mind that false- 
 hood or perjury will be punished, either 
 in this world or the next, or he cannot 
 be admitted as a witness. If he has not 
 this belief, he is disfranchised. In proof 
 of this, I refer your honors to the great 
 case of Ormichund against Barker, in 
 Lord Chief Justice Willes's report. Tliere 
 this doctrine is clearly laid down. But 
 in no case is a man allowed to be a wit- 
 ness that has no belief in future rewards 
 and pmiishments for virtues or vices, nor 
 ought he to be. We hold life, liberty, 
 and property in this country upon a sys- 
 tem of oaths; oaths founded on a relig- 
 ious belief of some sort. And that sys- 
 tem which would strike away the great 
 substratum, destroy the safe possession 
 of life, liberty, and property, destroy all 
 the institutions of civil society, cannot 
 and will not be considered as entitled to 
 the protection of a court of equity. It 
 has been said, on the other side, that 
 there was no teaching ar/airt^t religion or 
 Christianity in this system. I deny it. 
 The whole testament is one bold procla- 
 mation against Christianity and religion 
 of every creed. The children are to be 
 brought up in the principles declared in 
 that testament. They are to learn to be 
 suspicious of Christianity and religion; 
 to keep clear of it, that their youthful 
 heart may not become su.sceptible of the 
 iuHuenccs of Christianity or religion in 
 the slighli'st degree. They are to be 
 told and taught that religion is not a 
 matter for the heart or conscience, but 
 for tJie decision of the cool judgment of 
 
 mature years ; that at that period when 
 the whole Christian world deem it most 
 desirable to instU the chastening influ- 
 ences of Christianity into the tender and 
 comparatively pure mind and heart of 
 the child, ere the cares and corruptions 
 of the world have reached and sealed 
 it, — at that period the child in this col- 
 lege is to be carefully excluded there- 
 from, and to be told that its influence 
 is pernicious and dangerous in the ex- 
 treme. Why, the whole system is a con- 
 stant preaching against Christianity and 
 against religion, and I insist that there 
 is no charity, and can be no charity, in 
 that system of instruction from which 
 Christianity is excluded. I perfectly 
 agree with what my learned friend says 
 in regard to the monasteries of the Old 
 World, as seats of learning to which 
 we are all indebted at the present day. 
 Much of OUT learning, almost all of our 
 early histories, and a vast amount of 
 literary treasm-e, were preserved therein 
 and emanated therefrom. But we all 
 know, that although these were emphat- 
 ically receptacles for literature of the 
 highest order, yet they were always con- 
 nected with Christianity, and were al- 
 ways regarded and conducted as relig- 
 ious establishments. 
 
 Going back as far as the statutes of 
 Henry the Fourth, as early as 1402,^ in 
 the act respecting charities, we find that 
 one hundred years before the Keforma- 
 tion, in Catholic times, in the establish- 
 ment of every charitable institution, 
 there was to be proper provision for re- 
 ligious instruction. Again, after the 
 time of the Reformation, Mhen those 
 monastic institutions were abolished, in 
 the 1st Edw. VI. ch. 14, we find certain 
 chantries abolished, and their funds aj>- 
 propriated to the instruction of youth in 
 the grammar schools founded in that 
 reign, which Lord Eldon says extended 
 all over the kingdom. In aU these we 
 tind provision for religious instruction, 
 the dispensation of the same being by u 
 teacher or preacher. In 2 Swanston, 
 p. 529, the case of the Bedford Charity, 
 Lord Eldon gives a long opinion, in the 
 course of which he says, that in these 
 1 -2 I'lcktring, p. 433. 
 
AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 51:7 
 
 schools care is taken to educate youth in 
 the (Christian religion, and in all of them 
 the New Testament is taught, both in 
 Latin and Greek. Here, then, we find 
 that the great and leading provision, 
 botli before and after the Reformation, 
 was to connect the knowledge of Chris- 
 tianity with human letters. And it will 
 be always found that a school for in- 
 struction of youth, to possess the privn- 
 leges of a charity, must be provided with 
 religious instruction. 
 
 For the decision, that the essentials of 
 Christianity are part of tlie common law 
 of the land, I refer your honors to 1 Ver- 
 non, p. 293, where Lord Ilale, who can- 
 not be suspected of any bigotry on this 
 subject, says, that to decry religion, and 
 call it a cheat, tends to destroy all re- 
 ligion; and he also declares Christianity 
 to be part of the common law of the 
 land. Ml-. N. Dane, in his Abridgment, 
 ch. 219, recognizes the same princijile. 
 In 2 Strange, p. Hoi, case of The King i\ 
 Wilson, the judges would not suffer it to 
 be debated that writing against religion 
 generally is an offence at common law. 
 They laid stress upon the word " gener- 
 ally," because there might arise differ- 
 ences of opinion between religious writ- 
 ers on points of doctrine, and so forth. 
 So in Taylor's case, 3 Merivale, p. 405, 
 by the High Court of Chancery, these 
 doctrines were recognized and main- 
 tained. The same doctrine is laid down 
 in 2 Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, p. 95, 
 Evans r. The Chamberlain of London; 
 and in 2 Russell, p. 501, The Attorney- 
 General V. The Earl of jNIansfield. 
 
 There is a case of recent date, which, 
 if the English law is to prevail, would 
 seem conclusive as to the character of 
 this devise. It is the case of The Attor- 
 ney-General I'. Cullum, I Younge and 
 Collyer's Reports, p. 411. The case was 
 heard and decided in 1842, by Sir Knight 
 Bruce, Vice-Chancellor. The reporter's 
 abstract, or summary, of the decision is 
 this: "Courts of equity, ix this 
 
 COUNTRY, WILL NOT SANCTIOX ANY 
 SYSTEM OF EDUCATION IN WHICII RE- 
 IIGION IS NOT INCLUDED." 
 
 The charity in question in that case 
 w as established in the reign of Edward 
 
 the Fourth, for the benefit of the com- 
 munity and poor inhabitants of the town 
 of Bury St. Edmunds. The objects of 
 the charity were various: for relief of 
 prisoners, educating and instructing 
 poor people, for food and raiment for 
 the aged and impotent, and others of 
 the same kind. There were uses, also, 
 now deemed superstitious, such as pray- 
 ing for the souls of the dead. In this, 
 and in other respects, the charity re- 
 quired revision, to suit it to the habits 
 and requirements of modern times; and 
 a scheme was accordingly set forth for 
 such revision by the master, under the 
 direction of the court. By this scheme 
 there were to be schools, and these 
 schools were to be closed on Sundays, 
 although the Scriptures were to be read 
 daily on other days. This was objected 
 to, and it was insisted, on the other 
 hand, tiiat the masters and mistresses 
 of tlie sciiools should be members of the 
 Church of England; that they should, 
 on every Lord's day, give instruction 
 in the doctrines of the Church to those 
 children whose parents might so desire; 
 but that all the scholars should be re- 
 quired to attend public worship every 
 Lord's day in the parish church, oi- other 
 place of worshij), according to their respec- 
 tive creeih. 
 
 The Vice-Chancellor said, that the 
 term " education " was properly under- 
 stood, by all the parties, to comprehend 
 religious instruction; that the objection 
 to the scheme proposed bj' the master 
 was not that it did not provide for re- 
 ligious instruction according to the doc- 
 trines of the Church of England, but 
 that it did not provide for religious in- 
 struction at all. In the course of the 
 hearing, the Vice-Chancellor said, that 
 any scheme of education, without relig- 
 ion, would be worse than a mockery. 
 The parties afterwards agreed, that the 
 masters and mistresses should be mem- 
 bers of the Church of England; that 
 every school day the master should give 
 religious instruction, during one hour, 
 to all the scholars, such religious instruc- 
 tion to be conjined to the reading and ex- 
 planation of the Scriptures ; that on every 
 Lord's day he should give instruction in 
 
528 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY 
 
 the liturgy, catechism, and articles of 
 the Church of England, and that the 
 scholars should attend church everj' 
 Lord's day, unless they were children of 
 ■persons not in communion with the Church 
 of Enrjland. In giving the sanction of 
 tlie court to this arrangement, the Vice- 
 Chancellor said, that he wished to have 
 it distinctly understood that the gi'ound 
 on which he had proceeded was not a 
 preference of one form of religion to 
 another, but the necessity, if the matter 
 was left to him judicially, to adopt the 
 course of requiring the teachers to be 
 members of the Church of England. 
 
 This case clearly shows, that, at the 
 present day, a school, founded by a char- 
 ity, for the instruction of children, can- 
 not be sanctioned by the courts as a 
 charity, unless the scheme of education 
 includes religious instruction. It shows, 
 too, that this general requisition of the 
 law is independent of a church estab- 
 lisiunent, and that it is not religion in 
 any particular form, but religion, relig- 
 ious and Christian instruction in some 
 form, which is held to be indispensable. 
 It cannot be doubted how a charity for 
 the instruction of children would fare in 
 an English court, the scheme of which 
 should carefully and sedulously exclude 
 all religious or Christian instruction, 
 and profess to establish morals on prin- 
 ciples no higher than those of enlight- 
 ened Paganism. 
 
 Enough, then, your honors, has been 
 said on this point; and I am willing that 
 inquiry should be prosecuted to any ex- 
 tent of research to controvert this posi- 
 tion, that a school of education for the 
 young, which rejects the Christian relig- 
 ion, cannot be sustained as a charity, so 
 as to entitle it to come before the courts 
 of equity for the privileges which they 
 liave power to confer on charitable be- 
 quests. 
 
 Mr. AVcbstcr then rcplicil to the remarks 
 of Mr. Binney, in relation to the Liverpool 
 Blue Coat School, and read from the report 
 of Mr. Baclie on education in Europe, Mr. 
 Baclie iiaving been sent abroad by tlie city 
 of Philadelphia to investigate tiiis whole 
 matter of education. 
 
 If Mr. Giiard had established such a 
 
 school as that, it would have been free 
 from all those objections that have been 
 raised against it. This Liverpool Blue 
 Coat School, though too much of a relig- 
 ious party character, is strictly a churcli 
 establishment. It is a school established 
 on a peculiar foundation, that of the 
 ^Iadra,s system of Dr. Bell. It is a 
 monitorial school; those who are ad- 
 vanced in learning are to teach the 
 others in religion, as well as secular 
 knowledge. It is strictly a religious 
 school, and the only objection is, that 
 in its instruction it is too mucli confined 
 to a particular sect. 
 
 Mr. Binney observed that there was no 
 provision made for clergymen. 
 
 That is true, because the scheme of 
 the school is monitorial, in which the 
 more advanced scholars instruct the 
 others. But religious instiuction is am- 
 ply and particularly provided for. 
 
 Mr. Webster tlicn referred to Shclford, 
 p. 105, and onward, under the head " Jews," 
 in the fourtii paragraph, where, he stated, 
 tlie whole matter, and all the cases, as re- 
 garded the condition and position of the 
 Jews respecting various charities, were 
 given in full. 
 
 He tlien referreil to the Smithsonian leg- 
 acy, which had been mentioned, and which 
 he said was no charity at all, nor any tiling 
 like a charity. It was a gift to Congress, 
 to be disposed of as Congress saw fit, for 
 scientific purposes. 
 
 He then replied, in a few words, to the 
 arguments of Mr. Binney in relation to the 
 University of \'irginia; and said that, al- 
 though there was no provision for religious 
 instruction in that University, yet he sup- 
 posed it would not be conteiuled for a mo- 
 ment tliat tiie University of Virginia was a 
 charity, or that it came before the courts 
 claiming of the law of that State protection 
 as such. It stood ou its charter. 
 
 I repeat again, before closing this part 
 of my argument, the proposition, impor- 
 tant as I believe it to be, for j'our hon 
 ors' consideration, that the proposed 
 school, in its true character, objects, 
 and tendencies, is derogatory to Chris- 
 tianity and religion. If it be so, then I 
 maintain that it cannot be considered a 
 charity, and as such entitled to the just 
 
AND THE llELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNll. 
 
 529 
 
 protection aufl support of a court of 
 equity. I consider this the great ques- 
 tion for the consideration of this court. 
 I may be excused for pressing it on the 
 attention of your lionors. It is one 
 •whicli, in its decision, is to influence the 
 Jiappiness, the temporal and the eternal 
 welfare, of one hundred millions of hu- 
 man beings, alive and to be born, in this 
 land. Its decision will give a hue to the 
 apparent character of our institutions; 
 it will be a comment on their spirit to 
 the whole Christian world. I again 
 press the question to your honors : Is a 
 clear, plain, positive system for the instruc- 
 tion of children, founded on clear and 
 plain objects of infdelity, a charity in the 
 eye of the laic, and as such entitled to the 
 privileges awarded to charities in a court 
 of equity? And with this, I leave this 
 part of the case. 
 
 THIRD DAY. 
 
 I shall now, may it please your hon- 
 ors, proceed to inquire whether there is, 
 in the State of Pennsylvania, any set- 
 tled public policy to which this school, as 
 planned by Mr. Girard in his will, is in 
 opposition ; for it follows, that, if there 
 be any settled public policy in the laws 
 of Pennsylvania on this subject, then 
 any school, or scheme, or system, which 
 tends to subvert this public policy, can- 
 not be entitled to the protection of a 
 court of equity. It will not be denied 
 that there is a general public policy in 
 that, as in all States, drawn from its 
 history and its laws. And it will not 
 be denied that a iy scheme or school of 
 education which directly opposes this is 
 not to be favored by the courts. Penn- 
 Bjlvania is a free and independent State. 
 She has a popular government, a sys- 
 tem of trial by jury, of free suffrage, of 
 vote by ballot, of alienability of prop- 
 erty. All these form part of the general 
 public policy of Pennsylvania. Any 
 man who shall go into that State can 
 speak and write as much as he pleases 
 against a popular form of government, 
 freedom of suil'ra5;^e, trial by jury, and 
 against any or all of the institutions 
 just named; he may decry civil liberty. 
 
 and assert the divine right of kings, and 
 still he does nothing criminal; but if, 
 to give success to such efforts, special 
 power from a court of justice is required, 
 it will not be granted to him. There is 
 not one of these features of the general 
 public policy of Pennsylvania against 
 which a school might not be established 
 and preachers and teachers employed to 
 teach. That might in a certain sense 
 be considered a school of education, but 
 it would not be a charity. And if Mr. 
 Girard, in his lifetime, had founded 
 schools and employed teachers to preach 
 and teach in favor of infidelity, or against 
 popular government, free suffrage, trial 
 by jury, or the alienability of property, 
 there was nothing to stop him or prevent 
 him from so doing. But where any one 
 or all of these come to be provided for a 
 school or system as a charity, and come 
 before the com'ts for favor, then in nei- 
 ther one, nor all, nor any, can they be 
 favored, because they are opposed to the 
 general public policy and public law of 
 the State. 
 
 These great principles have always 
 been recognized; and they are no more 
 part and parcel of the public law of 
 Pennsylvania than is the T!hristian re- 
 ligion. AVe have in the charter of 
 Pennsylvania, as prepared by its great 
 founder, William Penn, — we have in his 
 "great law," as it was called, the dec- 
 laration, that the preservation of Chris- 
 tianity is one of the great and leading 
 ends of government. This is declared 
 in tlie charter of the State. Then the 
 laws of Pennsylvania, the statutes 
 against blasphemy, tlie violation of the 
 Lord's day, and others to the same 
 effect, proceed on this great, broad 
 principle, tliat the preservation of Chris- 
 tianity is one of tiie main ends of gov- 
 ernment. This is the general public 
 policy of Pennsylvania. On this head 
 we have the case of Updegraph v. The 
 Commonwealth, 1 in which a decision in 
 accordance with this whole doctrine was 
 given by the Supreme Court of Penn- 
 sylvania. The solemn opinion pro- 
 nounced by that tribunal begins by a 
 general declaration that Christianity ia 
 1 1 1 Sergeant & Rawle, p. ^94. 
 
 34 
 
d30 
 
 THE CHRISTLVN MIXISTRY 
 
 and has always been, part of the com- 
 mon law of Pennsylvania. 
 
 I have said, your honors, that our 
 system of oaths in all our courts, by 
 which we hold liberty and property, 
 and all our rights, is founded on or 
 rests on Christianity and a religious 
 belief. In like manner the affirmation 
 of Quakers rests on religious scruples 
 drawn from the same source, the same 
 feeling jf religious responsibility. 
 
 The courts of Pennsylvania have 
 themselves decided that a charitable 
 bequest, which counteracts the public 
 policy of the State, cannot be sustained. 
 This was so ruled in the often cited case 
 of the Methodist Church v. Remington. 
 There, the devise was to the Methodist 
 Chm'ch generally, extending through 
 the States and into Canada, and the 
 trust was declared void on this account 
 alone; namely, that it was inconsistent 
 with the public policy of the State, 
 inconsistent with the general spirit of 
 the laws of Pennsylvania. But is there 
 any comparison to be made between 
 that ground on which a devise to a 
 church is declared void, namely, as in- 
 consistent with the public policy of the 
 State, and tlie case of a devise which 
 undermines and opposes the whole 
 Christian religion, and derides all its 
 ministers; the one tending to destroy 
 all religion, and the other being merely 
 against the spirit of the legislation and 
 laws of the State, and the general public 
 policy of government, in a very subordi- 
 nate matter? Can it be shown that this 
 devise of a piece of ground to the Meth- 
 odist Church can be properly set aside, 
 and declared void on general grounds, 
 and not be shown that such a devise as 
 tliat of Mr. Girard, which tends to over- 
 turn as well as oppose the public policy 
 and laws of Pennsylvania, can also be 
 set aside? 
 
 Sir, there are many other American 
 cases which I could cite to the court in 
 8upf)ort of this point of the case. I will 
 now only refer to 8 Johnson, page 291. 
 
 It is the same in Pennsylvania as 
 elsewhere, the general principles and 
 public policy are sometimes established 
 by constitutional provisions, sometimes 
 
 by legislative enactments, sometimes by 
 judicial decisions, and sometimes by 
 general consent. But however they 
 may be established, there is nothing 
 that we look for with more certainty 
 than this general principle, that Chris- 
 tianity is part of the law of the land. 
 This was the case among the PuriUuis 
 of Xew England, the Episcopalians of 
 the Southern States, the Pennsylvania 
 Quakers, the Baptists, the mass of the 
 followers of Whitefield and ^Vesley, and 
 the Presbyterians; all brought and all 
 adopted this great truth, and all have 
 sustained it. And where there is any 
 religious sentiment amongst men at all, 
 this sentiment incorporates itself with 
 the law. Ecery thing declares it. The 
 massive cathedral of the Catholic; the 
 Episcopalian church, with its lofty spire 
 pointing heavenward; the plain temple 
 of the Quaker; the log church of the 
 hardy pioneer of the wilderness; the 
 mementos and memorials around and 
 about us; the consecrated graveyards, 
 their tombstones and epitaphs, their 
 silent vaults, their mouldering contents ; 
 aU attest it. The dead prove it as well 
 as the living. The generations that are 
 gone before speak to it, and pronounce 
 it from the tomb. We feel it. All, all, 
 proclaim that Christianity, general, tol- 
 erant Christianity, Christianity inde- 
 pendent of sects and parties, that Cliris- 
 tianity to which the sword and the fagot 
 are unknown, general, tolerant Chris- 
 tianity, is the law of the land. 
 
 Mr. Webster, liavinji gone over the other 
 points in the case, wliich were of a more 
 technical character, in conclusion, said : — 
 
 I now take leave of this cause. I 
 look for no good whatever from the es- 
 tablishment of this school, this college, 
 this scheme, this experii.nent of an 
 education in "practical morality," un- 
 blessed by the influences of religion. 
 It sometimes happens to man to attain 
 by accident that which he could not 
 achieve by long-continued exercise of 
 industry and ability. And it is said 
 even of the man of genius, that by 
 chance he will sometimes " snat-ch a 
 grace beyond the reach of art." And 
 
AND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE YOUNG. 
 
 531 
 
 I believe that men sometimes do mis- 
 cliief, uot only beyond tlieir intent, 
 but beyond the ordinary scope of their 
 talents and ability. In my opinion, if 
 Mr. Girard had given years to the study 
 of a mode by which he could dispose of 
 his vast fortune so that no good could 
 arise to the general cause of charity, no 
 good to the general cause of learning, 
 no good to human society, and which 
 should be most productive of protracted 
 struggles, troubles, and difficulties iu 
 the popular counsels of a great city, he 
 could not so effectually have attained 
 that result as he has by this devise now 
 before the court. It is not the result 
 of good fortunes, but of bad fortunes, 
 
 which have overriden and cast down 
 whatever of good might have been ac- 
 complished by a different disposition. 
 I believe that this plan, this scheme, 
 was unblessed in all its purposes, and 
 in all its original plans. Unwise in all 
 its frame and theory, while it lives it 
 will lead an annoyed and troubled life, 
 and leave an unblessed memory when it 
 dies. If I could persuade myself that 
 this court would come to such a decision 
 as, in my opinion, the public good and 
 the law i-equire, and if I could believe 
 that any humble efforts of my own had 
 contributed in the least to lead to such 
 a result, I should deem it the cix)wning 
 mercy of my professional life. 
 
MR. JUSTICE STORY.' 
 
 [At a meeting of the Suffolk Bar, held 
 La the Circuit Court lloom, Boston, on tiie 
 morning of the 12th of Septemher, the day 
 of the funeral of Mr. Justice Story, Cliief 
 Justice Shaw having takfu tlie cliair and 
 announced the object of the meeting, :\Ir. 
 Webster rose and spoke substantially as 
 follows.] 
 
 Your solemn announcement, ]\lr. 
 Chief Justice, has confirmed the sad 
 intelligence which had already reached 
 us, through the public channels of in- 
 formation, and deeply afflicted us all. 
 
 Jo.«;eph Stouy, one of the Associate 
 Justices of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, and for many years the 
 presiding judge of this Circuit, died on 
 Wednesday evening last, at his house 
 in Cambridge, wanting only a few days 
 for the completion of the sixty-sixth 
 year of his age. 
 
 This most mournful and lamentable 
 event has called together the whole Bar 
 of Suffolk, and all connected with the 
 courts of law or the profession. It has 
 brought you, jSIr. Chief Justice, and 
 your associates of the Bench of the Su- 
 preme Court of iSIassachusetts, into the 
 midst of us; and you have done us the 
 honor, out of respect to the occasion, to 
 consent to preside over us, while we 
 deliberate on what is due, as well to 
 our own afflicted and smitten feelings, 
 as to the exalted character and eminent 
 distinction of tiie deceased judge. The 
 occasion has drawn from his retirement, 
 
 1 The following letter of dedication to the 
 mother of Judge Story accompanied these re- 
 marks in the original edition : — 
 
 "■ Boslun, Si'ptember 15, 184.'). 
 
 "Veneu.vbi.e M.vdam, — I pniy you to 
 allow nie to present to you the brief remarks 
 which I made before the Suffolk Har, on the 
 l'2lh instant, nt a meeting occasioned by the 
 iuddenand afllictingdeathof your distinguished 
 
 also, that venerable man, whom we ah 
 so much respect and honor, (Judge 
 Davis,) who was, for thirty years, the 
 associate of the deceased upon the same 
 Bench. It has called hither another 
 judicial personage, now in retirement, 
 (Judge Putnam,) but long an ornament 
 of that Bench of which you are now the 
 head, and whose marked good fortune 
 it is to have been the professional teach- 
 er of Mr. Justice Story, and the director 
 of his early studies. He also is present 
 to whom this blow comes near; I mean, 
 the learned judge (Judge Sprague) from 
 whose side it has struck away a friend 
 and a highly venerated official associate. 
 The members of the Law School at 
 Cambridge, to which the deceased was 
 so much attached, aiul who returned 
 that attachment with all the ingenuous- 
 ness and enthusiasm of educated and 
 ardent youthful minds, are here also, to 
 manifest their sense of their own severe 
 deprivation, as well as their admiration 
 of the bright and shining professional 
 example which they have so loved to 
 contemplate, — an example, let me say 
 to them, and let me say to all, as a 
 solace in the midst of their sorrows, 
 which death hath not touched and which 
 time cannot obscure. 
 
 'Mr. Chief Justice, one sentiment per- 
 vades us all. It is that of the mot 
 profound and penetrating grief, mixed, 
 nevertheless, with an assured convic- 
 
 son. I trust, dear Madam, that as you enjoyed 
 tliiough iiis whole life constant proofs of hi« 
 profound res(X'cl and ardent filial affection, so 
 you niav yet live long to enjoy the remembrance 
 of his virtues ami his exalted re|)utation. 
 " 1 am, with very great regard, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 "DAMtx Wkbstkb. 
 " To Madam Stouy." 
 
MR. JUSTICE STORY. 
 
 533 
 
 tion, that the great man whom we de- 
 plore is yet with us and in the midst of 
 VIS. lie hath not wliolly died. He lives 
 in the affections of friends and kindred, 
 and iu the high regard of the comniiuiity. 
 He lives in our remembrance of his so- 
 cial virtues, his warm and steady friend- 
 rtoips, and the vivacity and richness of 
 his conversation. He lives, and will live 
 etill more permanently, by his words of 
 WTitten wisdom, by the results of his 
 vast researches and attainments, by his 
 imperishable legal judgments, and by 
 tliose juridical disquisitions which have 
 stamped his name, all over the civilized 
 world, with the character of a com- 
 manding authority. " Vivit, enim, 
 vivetque semper; atque etiam latius in 
 memoria hominum et sermone versabi- 
 tur, postquam ab oculis recessit. " 
 
 ]Mr. Chief Justice, there are consola- 
 tions which arise to mitigate our loss, 
 and shed the influence of resignation 
 over unfeigned and heart-felt sorrow. 
 We are all penetrated with gratitude to 
 God that the deceased lived so long; 
 that he did so much for himself, his 
 friends, the country, and the world; 
 that his lamp went out, at last, without 
 unsteadiness or flickering. He contin- 
 ued to exercise every power of his mind 
 without dimness or obscuration, and 
 every affection of his heart with no 
 abatement of energy or warmtii, till 
 death drew an impenetrable veil be- 
 tween us and him. Indeed, he seems 
 to us now, as in truth he is, not extin- 
 guished or ceasing to be, but only with- 
 drawn; as the clear sun goes down at 
 its setting, not darkened, but only no 
 longer seen. 
 
 This calamity, !Mr. Chief Justice, is 
 not confined to the bar or the courts of 
 this Commonwealth. It will be felt by 
 every bar throughout the land, by every 
 court, and indeed by every intelligent 
 and well-informed man in or out of the 
 profession. It will be felt still more 
 widely, for his reputation had a still 
 wider range. In the High Court of 
 Parliament, in every tribunal in West- 
 minster Hall, in the judicatories of 
 Paris and Berlin, of Stockholm and St. 
 Petersburg, in the learned universities 
 
 of Germany, Italy, and Spain, by every 
 eminent jurist in the civilized world, it 
 will be acknowledged that a great lumi- 
 nary has fallen from the firmament of 
 public jurisprudence. 
 
 Sir, there is no purer pride of cour.try 
 than that in wliich we may indulge 
 when we see America paying back the 
 great debt of civilization, learning, and 
 science to Eurojie. In tiiis high return 
 of light for light and mind for mind, in 
 this august reckoning and accounting 
 between the intellects of nations, Joseph 
 Story was destined by Providence to 
 act, and did act, an important part. 
 Acknowledging, as we all acknowledge, 
 our obligations to the original sources 
 of English law, as well as of civil lib- 
 erty, we have seen in our generation 
 copious and salutary streams turnijig 
 and running backward, replenishing 
 their original fountains, and giving a 
 f reslier and a brighter green to the fields 
 of English jurisprudence. By a sort of 
 reversed hereditary transmission, the 
 mother, without en\^ or humiliation, 
 acknowledges that she has received a 
 valuable and cherished inheritance from 
 the daughter. The profession in Eng- 
 land admits with frankness and candor, 
 and with no feeling but that of respect 
 and admiration, that he whose voice we 
 have so recently heard within these 
 walls, but shall now hear no more, was, 
 of all men who have yet appeared, most 
 fitted by the comprehensiveness of his 
 mind, and the vast extent and accuracy 
 of his attainments, to compare the codes 
 of nations, to trace their differences to 
 difference of origin, climate, or religious 
 or political institutions, and to exhibit, 
 nevertheless, their concurrence in those 
 great principles upon which the system 
 of human civilization rests. 
 
 Justice, Sir, is the great interest of 
 man on earth. It is the ligament which 
 holds civilized beings and civilized na- 
 tions together. Wherever her temple 
 stands, and so long as it is duly honored, 
 there is a foundation for social security, 
 general happiness, and the improvement 
 and progress of our race. And whoever 
 labors on this edifice with usefulnesa 
 and distinction, whoever clears its foun- 
 
534 
 
 MR. ju?;tict: story. 
 
 dations, strengthens its pillars, adonis 
 its entablatures, or contributes to raise 
 its august dome still higher in the skies, 
 connects himself, in name, and fame, 
 and character, with that which is and 
 must be as durable as the frame of hu- 
 man society. 
 
 All know, Mr. Chief Justice, the pure 
 love of country which animated the 
 deceased, and the zeal, as well as the 
 talent, with which he explained and de- 
 fended her institutions. His work on 
 the Constitution of the United States is 
 one of his most eminently successful 
 labors. But all his writings, and all his 
 judgments, all his opinions, and the 
 whole influence of his character, public 
 and private, leaned strongly and always 
 to the support of sound principles, to 
 the restraint of illegal power, and to the 
 discouragement and rebuke of licentious 
 and disorganizing sentiments. "Ad 
 rempublicam firmandam, et ad stabi- 
 liendas vires, et sanandura populum, 
 omnis ejus pergebat institutio." 
 
 But this is not the occasion, Sir, nor is 
 it for me to consider and discuss at length 
 the character and merits of Mr. Justice 
 Story, as a writer or a judge. Tlie per- 
 formance of that duty, with which this 
 Bar will no doubt charge itself, must be 
 deferred to another opportunity, and 
 will be committed to abler hands. But 
 in the homage paid to his memory, one 
 part may come with peculiar propriety 
 and emphasis from ourselves. We have 
 known him in private life. We have 
 seen him descend from the bench, and 
 mingle in our friendly circles. We have 
 known his manner of life, from his youth 
 up. We can bear witness to the strict 
 uprightness and purity of his character, 
 his simplicity and unostentatious habits, 
 the ease and affability of his intercourse, 
 his remarkable vivacity amidst severe 
 labors, the cheerful and animating tonr-s 
 of his conversation, and his fast fidelity 
 to friends. Some of us, also, can tes- 
 tify to liis large and liberal cliarities, 
 not ostentatious or casual, but sys- 
 tematic and silent, — 'dispensed almost 
 without .showing the hand, and falling 
 and distilling comfort and happiness, 
 like tlie dews of heaven. But we can 
 
 testify, also, that in all his pursuits and 
 employments, in all his recreations, in 
 all his commerce with the world, and in 
 his intercourse with the circle of his 
 friends, the predominance of his judicial 
 character was manifest. He never for- 
 got the ermine which he wore. The 
 judge, the judge, the useful and dis- 
 tingui.shed judge, was the great picture 
 which he kept constantly before his 
 eyes, and to a resemblance of which all 
 his efforts, all his thoughts, all his life, 
 were devoted. We may go the world 
 over, without finding a man who shall 
 present a more striking realization of 
 the beautiful conception of D'Agues- 
 seau: '"C'est en vain que I'on cherclie a 
 distinguer en lui la personne priv^e et 
 la personne publique; un mcme esprit 
 les anime, \\n meme objet les reunit; 
 I'homme, le pere de faniille, le citoyen, 
 tout est en lui consacr6 k la gloire du 
 magistrat." 
 
 Mr. Chief Justice, one may live as a 
 conqueror, a king, or a magistrate; but 
 he must die as a man. The bed of death 
 brings every human being to his pure in- 
 dividuality ; to the intense contempla- 
 tion of that deepest and most solemn of 
 all relations, the relation between the 
 creature and his Creator. Here it is 
 that fame and renown cannot assist 
 us; that all external things must fail 
 to aid us ; that even friends, affec- 
 tion, and human love and devotedness, 
 cannot succor us. This relation, the 
 true foundation of all duty, a relation 
 perceived and felt by conscience and 
 confirmed by revelation, our illustrious 
 friend, now deceased, always acknowl- 
 edged. He reverenced the Scriptures of 
 truth, honored the pure morality which 
 they teach, and clung to the hopes of 
 future life which they impart. He be- 
 held enough in nature, in him.self, and 
 in all that can be known of things seen, 
 to feel assured that there is a Supreme 
 Power, without whose providence not a 
 sparrow falleth to the ground. To this 
 gracious being he trusted himself for 
 time and for eternity ; and the last 
 words of his lips ever heard by mor- 
 tal ears were a fervent supplication lo 
 his ^laker to take him to him.self. 
 
THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 AN ARGIBIENT MADE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ON 
 THE 27x11 OF JANUARY, 1848, IN THE DORR REBELLION CASES. 
 
 [The facts necessary to the understand- 
 ing of these cases are sutBciently set forth 
 ill the commencement of ^Nlr. Webster's 
 argmnent. The event out of wliich the 
 eases arose is known in popular language 
 as the Dorr Rebellion. The tirst case (that 
 of Martin Lutlier against Luther ^L Borden 
 and others) came uj) by writ of error from 
 tlie Circuit Court of Kiiodo Island, in which 
 the jury, under the rulings of the court 
 (Mr. Justice Story), found a verdict for the 
 defendants ; the second case (that of Rachel 
 Luther against the same defendants) came 
 up by a certificate of a division of opinion. 
 The allegations, evidence, and arguments 
 ■were the same in both cases. 
 
 The first case was argued by Mr. Ilallet 
 and Mr. Clifford (Attorney-General) for the 
 plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Whipple and 
 Mr. Webster for the defendants in error. 
 Mr. Justice Catron, Mr. Justice Daniel, and 
 Mr. Justice McKinley were absent from the 
 court, in consequence of ill health. Chief 
 Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the 
 court, aftirming the judgment of the court 
 below in the first case, and dismissing the 
 second for want of jurisdiction. Mr. Jus- 
 tice Woodbury dissented, and delivered a 
 very elaborate opinion in support of his 
 view of the subject.] 
 
 There is something novel and ex- 
 
 f-,raordinary in the case now before the 
 court. All will admit that it is not 
 such a one as is usually presented for 
 judicial consideration. 
 
 It is well known, that in the years 
 1811 and 1842 political agitation existed 
 in Rhode Island. Some of the citizens 
 of that State undertook to form a new 
 constitvtiou of government, beginning 
 
 their proceedings towards that end by 
 meetings of the people, held without 
 authority of law, and conducting those 
 proceedings through such forms as led 
 them, in 1842, to say that they had es- 
 tablished a new constitution and form 
 of government, and placed iSIr. Thomas 
 W. Dorr at its head. The previously 
 existing, and then existing, government 
 of Rhode Island treated these proceed- 
 ings as nugatory, so far as they went to 
 establish a new constitution ; and crim- 
 inal, so far as they proposed to confer 
 authority upon any persons to interfere 
 with the acts of the existing govern- 
 ment, or to exercise powers of legisla- 
 tion, or administration of the laws. All 
 will remember that the state of things 
 approached, if not actual conflict be- 
 tween men in arms, at least the "peril- 
 ous edge of battle." Arms were re- 
 sorted to, force was used, and gi-eater 
 force threatened. In ,Iune, 1842, this 
 agitation subsided. The new govern- 
 ment, as it called itself, disappeared from 
 the scene of action. The former gov- 
 ernment, the Charter government, as it 
 was sometimes styled, resumed undis- 
 puted control, went on in its ordinary 
 course, and the peace of the State was 
 restored. 
 
 But the past had been too serious to 
 be forgotten. The legislature of the 
 State had, at an early stage of the 
 troubles, found it necessary to pass 
 
536 
 
 THE RHODE ISLA^'D GOVERNilENT. 
 
 special laws for the punishment of the 
 j)ersons concerned in these proceedings. 
 It defined the crime of treason, as well 
 as smaller offences, and authorized the 
 declaration of martial law. Governor 
 King, under this authority, proclaimed 
 the existence of treason and rebellion 
 in the State, and declared the State 
 under martial law. This having been 
 done, and the ephemeral government of 
 Mr. Dorr having disappeared, the gi'and 
 juries of the State found indictments 
 against several persons for having dis- 
 tmiied the peace of the State, and one 
 against Dorr himself for treason. This 
 indictment came on in the Supreme 
 Court of Rhode Island in 1844, before 
 a tribunal admitted on all hands to be 
 the legal judicature of the State. He 
 was tried by a jury of Rhode Island, 
 above all objection, and after all chal- 
 lenge. By that jury, under the instruc- 
 tions of the court, he was convicted of 
 treason, and sentenced to imprisonment 
 for life. 
 
 Now an action is brought in the 
 courts of the United States, and be- 
 fore your honors, by appeal, in which 
 it is attempted to prove that the char- 
 acters of this drama have been oddly 
 and wrongly cast; that there has been 
 a gi'eat mistake in the courts of Rhode 
 Island. It is alleged, that ]\[r. Dorr, 
 instead of being a traitor or an insur- 
 rectionist, was the real governor of the 
 State at the time; that the force used 
 by him was exercised in defence of the 
 constitution and laws, and not against 
 them; that he who opposed the consti- 
 tuted authorities was not Mr. Dorr, but 
 Governor King; and that it was he who 
 should have been indicted, and tried, 
 and sentenced. This is rather an ini- 
 pcvtant mistake, to be sure, if it be a 
 mistake. " Change places," cries poor 
 Lear, " change places, and ham/if-daiHli/, 
 wliich is the justice and which the 
 thief? " So our learned opponents say, 
 " Change places, and, huiuliz-ilaitdi/, 
 which is the governor and wiiich the 
 rebel?" TLe aspect of the c;use is, as 
 1 liave said, novel. It may perhaps 
 give vivacity and variety to judicial in- 
 vestigatious It may relieve the dj'udg- 
 
 ery of perusing briefs, demurrers, and 
 pleas in bar, biUs in equity and an- 
 swers, and introduce topics which give 
 sprightliness, freshness, and something 
 of an uncommon public interest to pro- 
 ceedings in courts of law. 
 
 However difficult it may be, and I 
 suppose it to be whoUij impossible, tjiat 
 this court should take judicial cogni 
 zance of the questions which the plain- 
 tiff has presented to the court below, yet 
 I do not think it a matter of regi'et that 
 the cause has come hither. It is said, 
 and truly said, that the case involves 
 the consideration and discussion of what 
 are the true principles of government in 
 our American system of public liberty. 
 This is verv right. The case does in- 
 volve these questions, and harm can 
 never come from their discussion, espe- 
 cially when such discussion is addressed 
 to reason and not to passion ; when it is 
 had before magistrates and lawyers, and 
 not before excited masses out of doors. 
 I agree entirely that the case does raise 
 considerations, somewhat extensive, of 
 t'lie true character of our American sys- 
 tem of popidar liberty; and although I 
 am constrained to differ from the learned 
 counsel who opened the cause for the 
 plaintiff in error, on the principles and 
 character of that American liberty, and 
 upon the true characteristics of that 
 American system on which changes of 
 the government and constitution, if they 
 become necessary, are to be made, yet I 
 agree with him that this case does pre- 
 sent them for consideration. 
 
 Now, there are certain principles of 
 public liberty, which, though they do 
 not exist in all forms of government, 
 exist, nevertlieless, to some extent, in 
 different forms of government. Tlie 
 protection of life and property, the hn- 
 lieas corpus, trial by jury, the right of 
 open trial, these are principles of public 
 libertv existing in their best form in tlie 
 republican institutions of tiiis country, 
 but, to the extent mentioned, existing 
 also in the constitution of England. 
 Our American liberty, allow me to say, 
 therefore, has an ancestry, a pedigree, a 
 history. Our ancestors brought to this 
 continent all that was valuable, in their 
 
THE RHODE ISI^VND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 637 
 
 judgment, in the political institutions of 
 Kiigland, and left behind them all that 
 was without value, or that was objec- 
 tionable. During the colonial jieriod 
 they were closely connected of course 
 with the colonial system ; but they were 
 Englislimen, as well as colonists, and 
 took an interest in whatever concerned 
 the mother country, especially in all 
 great questions of public liberty in that 
 countn". They accordingly took a deep 
 concern in the Revolution of l(i6S. The 
 American colonists had suffered from 
 the tyranny of James the Second. Their 
 charters had been -\\Tested from them by 
 mockeries of law, and by the corruption 
 of judges in the city of London; and in 
 no part of England was there more grat- 
 ification, or a more resolute feeling, 
 when James abdicated and William came 
 over, than in the American colonies. 
 All know that ^Massachusetts immedi- 
 ately overthrew what had been done 
 under the reign of James, and took pos- 
 session of the colonial fort in the harbor 
 of Boston in the name of the new king. 
 
 "When the United States separated 
 from England, by the Declaration of 
 1776, they departed from the political 
 maxims and examples of tlie mother 
 countrj , and entered upon a course more 
 exclusively American. From that day 
 down, our institutions and our history 
 relate to ourselves. Through the period 
 of the Declaration of Independence, of 
 the Confederation, of the Convention, 
 and the adoption of the Constitution, all 
 our public acts are records out of which 
 a knowledge of our system of American 
 liberty is to be drawn. 
 
 From the Declaration of Indejien- 
 dence, the governments of what had 
 been colonies before were adapted to 
 their new condition. They no longer 
 owed allegiance to crowned heads. No 
 tie bound them to England. The whole 
 system became entirely popular, and all 
 legislative and constitutional provisions 
 had regard to this new, peculiar, Amer- 
 ican character, which they had assumed. 
 Where the form of government was al- 
 ready well enough, they let it alone. 
 Wliere reform was necessar}-, they re- 
 formed it. What was valuable, they re- 
 
 tained; what was essential, they added; 
 and no more. Through the whole jiro- 
 ceeding, from 1770 to the latest period, 
 the whole course of American public 
 acts, the whole progiess of this Amer- 
 ican system, was marked by a peculiar 
 conservatism. Tlie object was to do 
 what was necessary, and no more; and 
 to do that with the utmost temperance 
 and prudence. 
 
 Now, without going into historical 
 details at length, let me state what I 
 understand the American principles to 
 be, on whicli this .system rests. 
 
 First and chief, no man makes a ques- 
 tion, that the people are the source of all 
 political power. Government is insti 
 tuted for their good, and its memberjj 
 are tlieir agents and servants. He who 
 would argue against this must argue 
 without an adversary. And who thinks 
 there is any peculiar merit in asserting 
 a doctrine like this, in the midst of 
 twenty millions of people, when nine- 
 teen millions nine hundred and ninety- 
 nine thousand nine hundred and nine- 
 ty-nine of them hold it, as well as 
 himself ? There is no other doctrine 
 of government here; and no man im- 
 putes to another, and no man should 
 claim for himself, any peculiar merit for 
 asserting what everj^body knows to be 
 true, and nobodj' denies. Why, where 
 else can we look but to the jieople for 
 political power, in a popular govern- 
 ment? We have no hereditaiy execu- 
 tive, no hereditary branch of the legis- 
 lature, no inherited masses of property, 
 no system of entails, no long trusts, no 
 long family settlements, no primogeni- 
 ture. Eveiy estate in the country, from 
 the richest to the poorest, is divided 
 among sons and daughters alike. Alien- 
 ation is made as easy as possible; every- 
 where the transmissibility of property is 
 perfectly free. The whole system is ar- 
 ranged so as to produce, as far as un- 
 equal industry and enterprise render it 
 possible, a universal equality among 
 men; an equality of rights absolutely, 
 and an equality of condition, so far as 
 the different characters of individuals 
 will allow such equality to be produced. 
 He who considers that there may be, is, 
 
538 
 
 THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 or ever has been, since the Declaration 
 of Independence, any person who looks 
 to any other source of power in this 
 country than the people, so as to give 
 peculiar merit to those who clamor loud- 
 est in Its assertion, must be out of his 
 mind, even more than Don Quixote. 
 His imagination was only perverted. 
 H'! saw things not as they were, though 
 what he saw were things. lie saw 
 windmills, and took them to be giants, 
 knights on horseback. Tliis was bad 
 enough; but wlioever says, or speaks as 
 if he thought, that anybody looks to any 
 other source of political power in this 
 country than the people, must have a 
 stronger and wilder imagination, for he 
 sees nothing but the creations of his own 
 fancy. He stares at phantoms. 
 
 Well, then, let all admit, what none 
 deny, that the only som-ce of political 
 power in this country is the people. Let 
 us admit that they are sovereign, for 
 they are so ; that is to say, the aggregate 
 community, tlie collected will of the 
 people, is sovereign. I confess that I 
 think Chief Justice Jay spoke rather 
 paradoxically than philosophically, when 
 he said that this country exhibited the 
 extraordinary spectacle of many sover- 
 eigns and no subjects. The people, he 
 said, are all sovereigns; and the pecu- 
 liarity of the case is that they have no 
 subjects, except a few colored persons. 
 This must be rather fanciful. The ag- 
 gregate community is sovereign, but 
 that is not (he sovereignty which acts in 
 the daily exercise of sovereign power. 
 The people cannot act daily as the peo- 
 ple. They must establish a government, 
 and invest it with so nmch of the sover- 
 eign power as the case requires; and 
 this sovereign power being delegated 
 ajid plaoed in the hands of the govern- 
 nieut, that government becomes what is 
 popularly called the state. I like tlie 
 old-fashioned way of stating things as 
 they are ; and this is the true idea of a 
 state. It is an organized government, 
 representing the collected will of the peo- 
 ple, as far as they see fit to invest that 
 governmout with power. And in that 
 respect it is true, that, though this gov- 
 ernment pos.ses.«p.s sovereign power, it 
 
 does not possess all sovereign power; 
 and so the State governments, though 
 sovereign in some respects, are not so in 
 all. Nor could it be shovru that the 
 powers of both, as delegated, embrace 
 the whole range of what might be called 
 sovereign power. "We usually speak of 
 the States as sovereign States. 1 do not 
 object to this. But the Constitution 
 never so styles them, nor does the Con- 
 stitution si>eak of the government here 
 as the general or the federal govei unient. 
 It calls this government the I'niled 
 States; and it calls the State govern- 
 ments State governments. Still the fact 
 is undeniably so; legislation is a sover- 
 eign power, and is exercised by the Unit- 
 ed States government to a certain extent, 
 and also by the States, according to the 
 forms which they themselves liave estab- 
 lished, and subject to the provisions of 
 the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 "Well, then, having agreed that all 
 power is originally from the people, and 
 that they can confer as nmch of it as 
 they please, the next principle is, tliat, 
 as the exercise of legislative power and 
 the other powers of government inmieiU- 
 ately by the people themselves is im- 
 practicable, they must be exercised by 
 RKPijKSENTATiVES of the people; and 
 what distinguishes American govern- 
 ments as much as any thing else from 
 any governments of ancient or of mod- 
 ern times, is the marvellous felicity of 
 their representative system. It has with 
 us, allow me to say, a somewhat ditfer- 
 ent origin from the representation of the 
 commons in England, though that has 
 been worked up to some resemblance of 
 our own. The representative system in 
 England had its origin, not in any su^v 
 posed rights of tlie people themselves, 
 but in the necessities and commands of 
 the crown. At first, kniglits and bur- 
 gesses were summoned, often against 
 their will, to a Parliament called by the 
 king, ^lany remonstrances were pre- 
 sented against sending up these repre- 
 sentatives; tlie charge of paying them 
 was, not unfrequently, felt to be bur- 
 densome by the people. But the king 
 wished their counsel and advice, and 
 l>erhaps the presence of a po^ndar body, 
 
THE RHODE ISLAXD GOVERNMENT. 
 
 539 
 
 to enable him to make ^eater headway 
 against the feudal barons in tlie aristo- 
 cratic and hereditary branch of the 
 legislature. In process of time these 
 knights and burgesses assumed more 
 and rriore a popular character, and be- 
 ca"3i3, by degrees, the guardians of pop- 
 ular rights. The people through them 
 obt-ained protection against the encroach- 
 ments of the cro^vn and the aristocracy, 
 till in our day they are understood to be 
 the representatives of the people, charged 
 with the protection of their rights. With 
 us it was always just so. Representa- 
 tion has always been of this character. 
 The power is with the people ; but they 
 cannot exercise it in masses or per capita ; 
 they can only exercise it by their repre- 
 sentatives. The whole system with us 
 has been popular from the beginning. 
 
 Now, the basis of this representation 
 is suffrage. The right to choose repre- 
 sentatives is every man's part in the ex- 
 ercise of sovereign power; to have a 
 voice in it, if he has the proper qualifica- 
 tions, is the portion of political power 
 belonging to every elector. That is the 
 beginning. That is the mode in which 
 power emanates from its source, and 
 gets into the hands of conventions, legis- 
 latures, cou7-ts of law, and the chair of 
 the executive. It begins in suffrage. 
 Suffrage is the delegation of the power 
 of an individual to some agent. 
 
 This being so, then follow two other 
 great principles of the American system. 
 
 1. The first is, that the right of suf- 
 frage shall be guarded, protected, and 
 eeciu-ed against force and against fraud ; 
 and, 
 
 2. The second is, that its exercise 
 shall be pi-escribed by previous law ; its 
 qualifications shall be prescribed by pre- 
 vious law; the time and place of its ex- 
 ercise shall be prescribed by previous law ; 
 the manner of its exercise, under whose 
 supervision (always sworn officers of the 
 law), is to be prescribed. And then, 
 again, the results are to be certified to 
 the central power by some certain rule, 
 by some known public officers, in some 
 clear and definite form, to the end that 
 two things may be done: first, that 
 every man entitled to vote may vote; 
 
 second, that his vote may be sent for- 
 ward and counted, and so he may exer- 
 cise his part of sovereignty, in common 
 with his fellow-citizens. 
 
 In the exercise of political power 
 through representatives we know noth- 
 ing, we never have known any thing, 
 but such an exercise as should take place 
 through the prescribed forms of law. 
 When we depart from that, we shall 
 wander as widely from the American 
 track as the pole is from the track of the 
 sun. 
 
 I have said that it is one principle ot 
 the American system, that the people 
 limit their governments. National and 
 State. They do so; but it is another 
 principle, equally true and certain, and, 
 according to my judgment of tilings, 
 equally important, that the people often 
 limit themseli-es. They set bounds to 
 their own power. They have chosen to 
 secure the institutions which they estab- 
 lish against the sudden impulses of mere 
 majorities. All our institutions teem 
 with instances of this. It was their 
 great conservative principle, in consti- 
 tuting forms of government, that they 
 should secure what they had established 
 against hasty changes by simple majori- 
 ties. By the fifth article of the C'cn-- 
 stitution of the United States, Congress, 
 two thirds of both houses concurring, 
 may propose amendments of the Con- 
 stitution; or, on the application of the 
 legislatures of two thirds of the States, 
 may call a convention ; and amendments 
 proposed in either of these forms must 
 be ratified by the legislatures or con- 
 ventions of three fourths of the States. 
 The fifth article of the Constitution, if it 
 was made a topic for those who framed 
 the "people's constitution" of Rhode 
 Island, could only have been a matter of 
 reproach. It gives no countenance to 
 any of their proceedings, or to any thing 
 like them. On the contrary, it is one 
 remarkable instance of the enactment 
 and application of that great American 
 principle, that the coLjtitution of gov- 
 ernment should be ca.itiously and pru- 
 dently interfered with, and that changes 
 should not ordinarily be begun and cv- 
 ried through by bare majorities. 
 
540 
 
 THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 But the people limit themselves also 
 in other ways. They limit themselves 
 in the first exercise of their political 
 rights. They limit themselves, by all 
 their constitutions, in two important 
 respects ; that is to say, in regard to the 
 qualifications of electors, and in regard 
 tj the (qualifications of the elected. In 
 every State, and in all the States, the 
 people have precluded themselves from 
 voting for everybody they might wish 
 to vote for ; they have limited their own 
 right of choosing. They have said, We 
 will elect no man who has not such and 
 such qualifications. We will not vote 
 ourselves, unless we have such and such 
 qualifications. They have also limited 
 themselves to certain prescribed forms 
 for the conduct of elections. They must 
 vote at a particular place, at a particu- 
 lar time, and under particular condi- 
 tions, or not at all. It is in these modes 
 that we are to ascertain the will of the 
 American people; and our Constitution 
 and laws know no other mode. We are 
 not to take the will of the people from 
 public meetings, nor from tumultuous 
 assemblies, by which the timid are ter- 
 rified, the prudent are alarmed, and by 
 which society is disturbed. These are 
 not American modes of signifying the 
 will of the people, and they never were. 
 If any thing in the country, not ascer- 
 tained by a regular vote, by regular re- 
 tui'us, and by regular representation, 
 has been established, it is an exception, 
 and not the rule ; it is an anomaly which, 
 I believe, can scarcely be found. 
 
 It is true that at tlie Revolution, when 
 all government, was immediately dis- 
 solved, the people got together, and 
 what did they do ? Did the}'^ exercise 
 sovereign power? They began an in- 
 ceptive organization, the object of wliich 
 was to bring together representatives of 
 the people, who should form a govern- 
 ment. Tliis was tlie n\ode of proceeding 
 in those States where their legislatures 
 were dissolved. It was much like that 
 had in England upon the abdication of 
 James the Second. He ran away, he 
 abdicated, lie tlirew the great seal into 
 tlie Thames. I am not aware that, on 
 the 4th ul' May, I84"J, any great seal was 
 
 thrown into Providence River! Bui 
 James abdicated, and King William took 
 the government; and how did he pro- 
 ceed? ^\liy, he at once requested all 
 who had been members of the old Par- 
 liament, of any regular Parliament in 
 the time of Charles the Second, to a.s- 
 semble. The Peers, being a standing 
 body, could of course assemble; and all 
 they did was to recommend the calling 
 of a convention, to be chosen by the 
 same electors, and composed of the same 
 numbers, as composed a Parliament. 
 The convention assembled, and, as all 
 know, was turned into a Parliament. 
 This was a case of necessity, a revolu- 
 tion. Don't we call it so? And why? 
 Xot merely because a new sovereign 
 then ascended the throne of the Stuarts, 
 but because there was a change in the 
 organization of the government. The 
 legal and established succession was 
 broken. The convention did not assem- 
 ble under any preceding law. There 
 was a hiatus, a syncope, in the action of 
 the bodj' politic. This was revolution, 
 and the Parliaments that assembled 
 afterwards referred their legal origin to 
 that revolution. 
 
 Is it not obvious enough, that men 
 cannot get together and count them- 
 selves, and say they are so many hun- 
 dreds and so many thousands, and judge 
 of their ovti qualifications, and call 
 themselves the people, and set up a gov- 
 ernment? ^Miy, another set of men, 
 forty miles otf, on the same day, with 
 the same propriety, with as good quali- 
 fications, and iu as large numbers, may 
 meet and set up another government; 
 one may meet at Newport and another 
 at Chepachet, and both may call them- 
 selves the people. What is this but 
 anarchy? What liberty is there here, 
 but a tumultuary, tempestuous, violent, 
 stormy liberty, a sort of South Ameri- 
 can liberty, without power except in its 
 spasms, a liberty supported by arms to- 
 day, crushed by arms to-morrow? Is 
 that our liberty? 
 
 The regular action of j^opular power, 
 on the other hand, places upon public 
 liberty the most beautiful face that ever 
 adorned that angel form. All is regida/ 
 
THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 541 
 
 and nannonious in its features, and 
 gentle in its operation. The stream of 
 public authority, under American lib- 
 erty, running in this channel, has the 
 strength of the ISIissouri, while its waters 
 are as transparent as those of a crystal 
 lake. It is powerful for good. It pro- 
 duces no tumult, no violence, and uo 
 wrong ; — 
 
 "Thjugli deep, ret clair; though gentle, yet 
 not dull; 
 Strong, without rage; without o'erflowing, 
 
 full." 
 
 Another American princiiile growing 
 out of this, and just as important and 
 well settled as is the truth that the 
 people are the source of power, is, that, 
 when in the course of events it becomes 
 necessary to ascertain the will of the 
 people on a new exigency, or a new 
 .state of things or of ojunion, the legis- 
 lative power provides for that ascertain- 
 ment by an ordinary act of legislation. 
 Has not that been our whole history? 
 It would take me from now till the sun 
 shall go down to advert to all the in- 
 stances of it, and I shall only refer to 
 the most prominent, and especially to 
 the establishment of the Constitution 
 under which you sit. The old Con- 
 gress, upon the suggestion of the dele- 
 gates who assembled at Annapolis in 
 IMay, 1786, recommended to the States 
 that they should send delegates to a 
 convention to be holden at riiiladelphia 
 to form a Constitution. No article of 
 the old Confederation gave them power 
 to do this; but they did it, and the 
 States did appoint delegates, who as- 
 sembled at Philadelphia, and formed 
 the Constitution. It was communicated 
 to the old Congi-ess, and that body rec- 
 ommended to the States to make pro- 
 vision for calling the people together to 
 act upon its adoiition. AVas not that 
 exactly the case of passing a law to as- 
 certain the will of the people in a new 
 exigency? And this method was adopt- 
 ed without opposition, nobody suggest- 
 ing that there could be any other mode 
 of ascertaining the will of the people. 
 
 .My learned friend went tln-ough the 
 constitutions of several of the States. 
 It is enough to say, that, of the old 
 
 thirteen States, the constitutions, with 
 but one exception, contained no pro- 
 vision for their own amendment. In 
 New Hampshire there was a provision 
 for taking the sense of the people once 
 in seven years. Yet there is hardly one 
 that has not altered its constitution, and 
 it has been done by conventions called 
 by the legislature, as an ordinary exer- 
 cise of legislative power. Now what 
 State ever altered its constitution in any 
 other mode? AVhat alteration hi.s ever 
 been brought in, put in, forced in, or 
 got in anyhow, by resolutions of mass 
 meetings, and then by applying force? 
 In what State has an assembly, calling 
 itself the people, convened without law, 
 without authority, without qualifica- 
 tions, without certain officers, with no 
 oaths, securities, or sanctions of any 
 kind, met and made a constitution, and 
 called it the constitution of the State? 
 There must be some authentic mode of 
 ascertaining the will of the peoi)le, else 
 all is anarchy. It resolves itself into 
 the law of the strongest, or, what is the 
 same thing, of the most numerous for 
 the moment, and all constitutions and 
 all legislative rights are prostrated and 
 disregarded. 
 
 But my learned adversary says, that, 
 if we maintain that the people (for he 
 speaks in the name and on behalf of the 
 people, to which I do not object) cannot 
 commence changes in their government 
 but by some previous act of legislation, 
 and if the legislature will not grant 
 such an act, we do in fact follow the ex- 
 ample of the Holy Alliance, " the doc- 
 tors of Laybach," where the assembled 
 sovereigns said that all clianges of gov- 
 ernment must proceed from sovereigns ; 
 and it is said that we mark out the 
 same rule for the people of Rhode 
 Island. 
 
 Now will any man, will my adversary 
 here, on a moment's reflection, under- 
 take to show the least resemblance on 
 earth between what I have called the 
 American doctrine, and the doctrine of 
 the sovereigns at Laybach? AA'hat do 
 I contend for? I say that the will of 
 the people must prevail, when it is as- 
 certained; but there must be ?on:e legal 
 
542 
 
 THE KlIODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 and authentic mode of ascertaining that 
 will; and then the people may make 
 what government they please. Was 
 tliat the doctrine of Laybach? Was 
 not the doctrine there held this, — that 
 the sovereigns should say what changes 
 shall be made? Changes must proceed 
 from them; new constitutions and new 
 laws emanate from them; and all the 
 people liad to do was to submit. That 
 is what they maintained. All changes 
 began with the sovereigns, and ended 
 with the sovereigns. Pray, at about 
 the time that the Congiess of Laybach 
 was in session, did the allied powers 
 put it to the people of Italy to say what 
 sort of cliange they would have? And 
 at a more recent date, did they ask the 
 citizens of Cracow what change they 
 would have in their constitution? Or 
 did they take away their constitution, 
 laws, and liberties, by their own sover- 
 eign act? All that is necessary here is, 
 that tue will of the people should be as- 
 certained, by some regular rule of pro- 
 ceeding, prescribed by previous law. 
 But when ascertained, that will is as 
 sovereign as the wiU of a despotic 
 prince, of the Czar of Musco\y, or the 
 Emperor of Austria himself, though not 
 quite so easily made known. A ukase 
 or an edict signifies at once the will of 
 a despotic prince ; but that will of the 
 people, which is here as sovereign as 
 the will of such a prince, is not so 
 quickly ascertained or known; and 
 thence arises the necessity for suffrage, 
 which is the mode whereby each man's 
 power is made to tell upon the constitu- 
 tion of the government, and in the en- 
 actment of laws. 
 
 One of the most recent laws for taking 
 the will of the people in any State is the 
 law of 1845, of tlie State of New York. 
 It begins by recommending to the peo- 
 ple to assemble in their several election 
 districts, and proceed to vote for dele- 
 gates to a convention. If you will take 
 the pains to read that act, it will be seen 
 that New York regarded it as an ordi- 
 nary exercise of legislative power. It 
 api>lies all the penalties for fraudulent 
 voting, as in other elections. It pun- 
 ishes false ouths, us in other cases. Cer- 
 
 tificates of the proper officers were to b« 
 held conclusive, and the will of the peo- 
 ple was, in this respect, collected essen- 
 tially in the same manner, supervised by 
 the same officers, under the same guards 
 against force and fraud, collusion and 
 misrepresentation, as are usual in voting 
 for State or United States officers. 
 
 AVe see, therefore, from the conwnence- 
 nient of the government under which we 
 live, down to this late act of the State of 
 New York, one uniform current of law, 
 of precedent, and of practice, all going 
 to establish the point that changes in 
 government are to be brought about by 
 the will of the people, assembled under 
 such legislative provisions as may be 
 necessary to ascertain that will, truly 
 and authentically. 
 
 In the next place, may it please your 
 honors, it becomes very important to 
 consider what bearing the Constitution 
 and laws of the United States have upon 
 this Rhode Island question. Of com-se 
 the Constitution of the United States 
 recognizes the existence of States. One 
 branch of the legislature of the United 
 States is composed of Senators, appointed 
 by the States, in their State capacities. 
 The Constitution of the United States ^ 
 says that " the United States shall guar- 
 antee to each State a republican form of 
 government, and shall protect the sev- 
 eral States against invasion ; and on ap- 
 plication of the legislature, or of the 
 executive when the legislature cannot 
 be convened, against domestic violence." 
 Now, I cannot but think this a very 
 stringent article, drawing after it the 
 most imjx)rtaut consequences, and all of 
 them good consequences. The Consti- 
 tution, in the section cited, spt-aks ol 
 States as having existing legislttures 
 and existing executives; and it speaks 
 of cases in which violence is practised or 
 threatened against the State, in other 
 words, " domestic violence " ; and it says 
 the Stat« shall be protected. It says, 
 then, does it not? that the existing gov- 
 ernment of a State shall be protected. 
 My adversary says, if so, and if the leg- 
 islature would not call a convention, and 
 1 Art. IV. § 4. 
 
THE RHODE ISLAND GOVEIINMENT. 
 
 543 
 
 if, when the people rise to make a cou- 
 etitution, the United States step in and 
 prohibit them, why, the rights and priv- 
 ileges of the people are checked, con- 
 trolled. Undoubtedly. The Constitu- 
 tion does not proceed on the ground of 
 i-evoliition ; it does not proceed on any 
 riijht of revolution ; but it does go on the 
 idea, that, within and under the Con- 
 stitution, no new form of government 
 can be established in any State, without 
 the authority of the existing govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Admitting the legitimacy of the argu- 
 ment of my learned adversary, it would 
 not authorize the inference he draws 
 from it, because his own case falls within 
 the same range. He has proved, he 
 thinks, that there was an existing gov- 
 ernment, a paper government, at least; 
 a rightful government, as he alleges. 
 Suppose it to be rightful, in his sense of 
 right. Suppose three fourths of the peo- 
 ple of Rhode Island to have been en- 
 gaged in it, and ready to sustain it. 
 What then? How is it to be done with- 
 out the consent of the previous govern- 
 ment ? How is the fact, that three 
 fourths of the people are in favor of the 
 new government, to be legally ascei'- 
 tained? And if the existing govern- 
 ment deny that fact, and if that govern- 
 ment hold on, and will not surrender till 
 displaced by force, and if it is threatened 
 by force, then the case of the Constitu- 
 tion arises, and the United States must 
 aid the government that is in, because 
 an attempt to displace a government by 
 force is " domestic violence." It is the 
 exigency provided for by the Constitu- 
 tion. If the existing government main- 
 tain its post, though three fourths of the 
 State have adopted the new constitu- 
 tion, is it not evident enough that the 
 exigency arises in which the constitu- 
 tional power here must go to the aid of 
 the existing government? Look at the 
 law of 2Sth February, 1795.^ Its words 
 are, " And in ca.se of an insurrection in 
 any State, against the government thereof, 
 it shall be lawful for the President of 
 the United States, on application of the 
 legislature of such State, or of the execu- 
 ^ Statutes at Large, Vol. I. p. 42-4. 
 
 five (w hen the legislature cannot be con- 
 vened), to call forth such number of the 
 militia of any other State or States, a3 
 may be a^iplied for, as he may judge 
 sufficient to suppress such insurrection." 
 Insurrection against the existing govern- 
 ment is, then, the thing to be suppressed. 
 
 But the law and the Constitution, the 
 whole system of American institutions, 
 do not contemplate a case in which a re- 
 soj't will be necessary to proceedings 
 aliunde, or outside of the law and the 
 Constitution, for the purpose of amend- 
 ing the frame of government. They go 
 on the idea that the States are all repub- 
 lican, that they are all representative in 
 their forms, and that these popular gov- 
 ernments in each State, the annually 
 created creatures of the people, will give 
 all pioper facilities and necessary aids 
 to bring about changes which the people 
 may judge necessary in their constitu- 
 tions. They take that ground and act 
 on no other supposition. They assume 
 that the popular will in all particulars 
 will be accomplished. And history haa 
 proved that the presumption is well 
 founded. 
 
 This, may it please your honors, is 
 the view I take of what I have called 
 the American system. These are the 
 methods of bringing about changes in 
 government. 
 
 Kow, it is proper to look into this 
 record, and see what the questions are 
 that are presented by it, and consider, — 
 
 1. Whether the case is one for judicial 
 investigation at all; that is, whether this 
 court can tiy the matters which the 
 plaintiff has offered to prove in the court 
 below; and, 
 
 2. In the second place, whether many 
 things which he did offer to prove, if 
 they could have been and had been 
 proved, were not acts of criminality, 
 and therefore no justification ; and, 
 
 3. Whether all that was offered to be 
 proved would show that, in point of fact, 
 there had been established and put in 
 operation any new constitution, dis- 
 placing the old charter government of 
 Ilhode Island. 
 
 The declaration is in trespass. The 
 writ was issued on the 8th of Octobet. 
 
o44 
 
 THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 1842, in which Martin Luther complains 
 that Lutlier M. Borden and otliers broke 
 into his house in Warren, Khode Island, 
 on the 29th of June, 1842, and disturbed 
 his family and committed other illegal 
 acts. 
 
 The defendant answei-s, that large 
 numbers of men were in arms, in Rhode 
 Island, for the purpose of overthrowing 
 the government of the State, and making 
 war upon it; and that, for the preserva- 
 tion of the government and people, mar- 
 tial law had been proclaimed by the 
 Governor, under an act of the legisla- 
 ture, on the 25th of June, 1842. The 
 plea goes on to aver, that the plaintiff 
 was aiding and abetting this attempt to 
 overthrow the government, and that the 
 defendant was under the military au- 
 thority of John T. Child, and was or- 
 dered by him to arrest the plaintiff; for 
 which purpose he applied at the door of 
 his house, and being refused entrance 
 he forced the door. 
 
 The action is thus for an alleged tres- 
 pass, and the plea is justification under 
 the law of llliode Island. The plea and 
 replications are as usual in such cases in 
 point of form. The plea was filed at 
 the November term of 1842, and the 
 case was tried at the November term of 
 
 1843, in the Circuit Court in Khode 
 Island. In order to make out a defence, 
 the defendant offered the charter of 
 Rhode Island, the participation of the 
 State in the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence, its uniting with the Confederation 
 in 1778, its admission into the Union in 
 1790, its continuance in the Union and 
 its recognition as a State down to ^lay, 
 1843, when the constitution now in force 
 was adopted. Here let it be particularly 
 remarked, tiiat Congress admitted Rliode 
 Island into the Constitution under this 
 identical old charter government, there- 
 by giving sanction to it as a republican 
 form of government. The defendant 
 then refers to all tlie ^aws and proceed- 
 ings of the Assembly, till the adoption 
 of the present constitution of Rliode 
 Island. To repel the case of the de- 
 fendant, the plaintiff read the proceed- 
 ings of the old legislature, and docu- 
 ments to show that the idea of changing 
 
 the government had been entertained nn 
 long ago as 1790. He read also certain 
 resolutions of the Assembly in 1841, 
 memorials praying changes in the con- 
 stitution, and other documents to the 
 same effect. He next offered to prove 
 that suffrage associations were formed 
 throughout the State in 1840 and 1811. 
 and that steps were taken by them foi 
 holding public meetings; and to show 
 the proceedings had at those meetings. 
 In the next place, he offered to piove 
 that a mass convention was held at New- 
 port, attended by over four thousand 
 persons, and another at Providence, at 
 which over six thousand attended, at 
 which resolutions were passed in favor 
 of the change. Then he offered to prove 
 the election of delegates; the meeting 
 of the convention in October, 1841, and 
 the draughting of the Dorr constitution ; 
 the reassembling in 1841, the comple- 
 tion of the draught, its submission to 
 the people, their voting upon it, its 
 adoption, and the proclamation on the 
 13th of January, 1842, that the consti- 
 tution so adopted was the law of the 
 land. 
 
 That is the substance of what was 
 averred as to the foi'ination of the Dorr , 
 constitution. The plaintiff next offered ^ 
 to prove that the constitution was 
 adopted by a large majority of the 
 qualified voters of the State; that ofii- 
 cers were elected under it in April, 1842; 
 that this new government assembled on 
 the 3d of May; and he offered a copy of 
 its proceedings. He sets forth that the 
 court refused to admit testimony uixin 
 these subjects, and to these points; and 
 ruled that the old government and laws 
 of tlie State were in full force and power, 
 and then existing, when the alleged 
 trespass was made, and that they jnsti- 
 fieil the acts of the defendants, accoiding 
 to their plea. 
 
 I will give a few references to other 
 proceedings of this new government. 
 The new constitution was proclaimed on 
 the 13th of January, 1842, by some of 
 the olhcers of the convention. On the 
 13th of April, officers were appointed 
 under it. and Mr. Dorr was cho.sen gov- 
 ernor. On Tuesday, the 3d of May, the 
 
THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 645 
 
 new legislature met, was organized, and 
 then, it is insisted, the new constitution 
 became the law of the land. The legis- 
 lature sat througli that whole day, 
 morning and evening; adjourned; met 
 the next day, and sat through all that 
 day, morning and evening, and did a 
 great deal of paper business. It went 
 through the forms of choosing a Supreme 
 Court, and transacting other business of 
 a similar kind, and on the evening of 
 the 4th of May it adjourned, to meet 
 again on the first Monday of July, in 
 Providence, 
 
 "And word spake never more." 
 
 It never reassembled. Tiiis govern- 
 ment, tlien, whatever it was, came into 
 existence on tlie third day of May, and 
 went out of existence on the fourth day 
 of IVIay. 
 
 I will now give some references con- 
 cerning the new constitution authorized 
 by the government, the old government, 
 and which is now the constitution of 
 llhode Island. It was framed in No- 
 vemV)er, 1842. It was voted upon by 
 the people on the 21st, 22d, and 23d 
 days of November, was then by them 
 accepted, and became by its own pro- 
 visions the constitution of Rhode Island 
 on the first Tuesday of ^lay, 1843. 
 
 Now, what, in the mean time, had 
 become of Mr. Dorr's government? 
 According to the principle of its friends, 
 they are forced to admit that it was 
 superseded by tlie new, that is to say, 
 the present government, because the 
 people accepted the new government. 
 But tiiere was no new government till 
 ]May, 1843. According to them, then, 
 there was an interregnum of a whole 
 year. If Mr. Dorr had had a govern- 
 ment, what became of it? If it ever 
 came in, what put it out of existence? 
 I Why did it not meet on the day to which 
 it had adjourned? It was not displaced 
 by the new constitution, because that 
 had not been agreed upon in convention 
 till November. It was not adopted by 
 the people till the l^st of November, 
 and it did not go into operation till May. 
 What then had become of Mr. Dorr's 
 government? 
 
 I think it is important to note that 
 the new con.stitution, established ac- 
 cording to the prescribed forms, came 
 thus into operation in May, 1843, and 
 was admitted by all to be the constitu- 
 tion of the State. Wliat then happened 
 in the State of Rhode Island? I do not 
 mean to go through all the trials that 
 were had after this ideal government of 
 Mr. Dorr ceased to exist; but I will a.sk 
 attention to the report of the trial ol 
 Dorr for treason, which took place in 
 1844. before all the judges of the Su- 
 preme Court of the State. lie was 
 indicted in August, 1842, and the trial 
 came on in March, 1844. The indict- 
 ment was found while the cliarter gov- 
 ernment was in force, and the trial was 
 had under the new constitution. lie 
 was found guilty of treason. 
 
 And I turn to the report of the trial 
 now, to call attention to the language 
 of the court in its charge, as deliv- 
 ered by Chief Justice Durfee. I pre- 
 sent the following extract from that 
 charge : — 
 
 " It may be, Gentlemen, that lie really 
 believed himself to be the governor of the 
 State, and that he acted throughout under 
 this delusion. However this may go to 
 extenuate the offence, it does not take from 
 it its legal guilt. It is no defence to an 
 indictment for the violation of any law for 
 the defendant to come into court and say, 
 ' I thought that I was but exercising a 
 constitutional right, and I claim an acquit- 
 tal on the ground of mistake.' Were it so, 
 there would be an end to all law and all 
 government. Courts and juries would have 
 nothing to do but to sit in judgment upon 
 indictments, in order to acquit or excuse. 
 The accused has only to prove that he has 
 been systematic in committing crime, and 
 that he thought that he had a right to com- 
 mit it ; and, according to this doctrine, you 
 nmst acquit. The main ground upon wliich 
 the prisoner sought for a justification was, 
 that a constitution had Innm adopted by a 
 majority of tlie male adult population of 
 this State, voting in tlieir primary or nat- 
 ural capacity or condition, and that he was 
 subsequently elected, and did the acta 
 charged, as governor under it. He offered 
 the votes themselves to prove its adoption, 
 which were also to be followed by proof of 
 his election. This evi<lence we have ruled 
 
 35 
 
546 
 
 THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 out. Courts and juries, Gentlemen, do not 
 count votes to deterniino whether a consti- 
 tution has been adopted or a governor 
 elected, or not. Courts take notice, with- 
 out proof offered from the bar, wliat the 
 constitution is or was, and wlio is or was 
 the governor of their own State. It belongs 
 to the legislature to exercise this high duty. 
 It is the legislature which, in the e.xercise 
 of its delegated sovereignty, counts the 
 votes and declares whether a constitution 
 be adopted or a governor elected, or not ; 
 and we cannot revise and reverse their acts 
 in this particular, without usurping their 
 power. Were the votes on the adoption of 
 our present constitution now offered here 
 to prove that it was or was not adopted; 
 or those given for the governor under it, to 
 prove tliat he was or was not elected ; we 
 could not receive the evidence ourselves, 
 •we could not permit it to pass to the jury. 
 And why not? Because, if we did so, we 
 should cease to be a mere judicial, and 
 become a political tribunal, with the whole 
 sovereignty in our hands. Neitlier the peo- 
 ple nor the legislature would be sovereign. 
 We should be sovereign, or you would be 
 sovereign ; and we should deal out to par- 
 ties litigant, here at our bar, sovereignty to 
 this or that, according to rules or laws of 
 our own making, and heretofore tmknown 
 in courts. 
 
 " In what condition would this country 
 be, if appeals could be thus taken to courts 
 and juries? This jury might decide one 
 way, and that another, and the sovereignty 
 might be found here to-day, and there to- 
 morrow. Sovereignty is above courts or 
 juries, and the creature cannot sit in judg- 
 ment upon its creator. Were this instru- 
 ment offered as the constitution of a foreign 
 state, we might, perhaps, under some cir- 
 cumstances, require proof of its existence ; 
 but, even in that case, the fact would not 
 be ascertained by counting the votes given 
 at its adoption, but by the certificate of the 
 secretary of state, under the broad seal of 
 the state. This instrument is not offered 
 as a forvMgn constitution, and this court is 
 bound to know what the constitution of the 
 government is under wliich it acts, without 
 any proof even of that high character. We 
 know nothing of the existence of tlie so- 
 called ' people's constitution ' as law, and 
 there is no proof before you of its adoption, 
 and of the election of the prisoner as gov- 
 ernor imder it ; and you can return a 
 verdict only on the evidence that has passed 
 to you." 
 
 Having thus, may it please your hoi> 
 ors, attempted to state the questions aa 
 they arise, and having referred to what 
 has taken place in Rhode Island, I shall 
 present what further I have to say in 
 three propositions : — 
 
 1st. I say, first that the matters 
 offered to be proved by the plaintiff in 
 the court below are not of judicial cog- 
 nizance; and proof of them, thereioie, 
 was properly rejected by the court. 
 
 2d. If aU these matters could be, and 
 had been, legally proved, they would 
 have constituted no defence, because 
 they show nothing but an illegal attempt 
 to overthrow the government of Rhode 
 Island. 
 
 3d. No proof was offered by the plain- 
 tiff to show that, in fact, another gov- 
 ernment had gone into operation, by 
 which the Charter government had 
 become displaced. 
 
 And first, these matters are not of 
 judicial cognizance. Does this need 
 arguing? Are the various matters of 
 fact alleged, the meetings, the appoint- 
 ment of committees, the qualifications 
 of voters, — is there any one of all these 
 matte.rs of which a court of law can take 
 cognizance in a case in which it is to 
 decide on sovereignty? Are fundamen- 
 tal changes in the frame of a govern- 
 ment to be thus proved? The thing to 
 be proved is a change of the sovereign 
 power. Two legislatures existed at the 
 same time, both claiming power to pass 
 laws. Both could not have a legal ex- 
 istence. What, then, is the attempt of 
 our adversaries? To put down one 
 sovereign government, and to put an- 
 other up, by facts and proceedings in 
 regard to elections out of doors, unau- 
 thorized by any law whatever. Regular 
 proceedings for a change of government 
 may in some cases, perhaps, be taken 
 notice of by a court; but this court must 
 look elsewhere than out of doors, and to 
 public meetings, irregular and unau- 
 thorized, for the decision of such a 
 question as this. It naturally looks to 
 that autliority under which it sits here, 
 to the provisions of the Constitution 
 which have created this tribunal, and to 
 the laws by which its proceedings are 
 
THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 547 
 
 rejrulated. It must look to the acts of 
 the government of tlie United States, in 
 its various branches. 
 
 This Rhode Island disturbance, as 
 everybody knows, was brouglit to the 
 knowledge of the President of the United 
 States 1 by the public authorities of Rhode 
 Island; and how did he treat it? The 
 United States have guaranteed to each 
 State a republican form of government. 
 And a law of Congress has directed the 
 President, in a constitutional case re- 
 quiring the adoption of such a proceed- 
 ing, to call out the militia to put down 
 domestic violence, and suppress insur- 
 rection. Well, then, application was 
 made to the President of the United 
 States, to the executive power of the 
 United States. For, according to our 
 system, it devolves upon the executive 
 to determine, in the first instance, what 
 are and what are not governments. The 
 President recognizes governments, for- 
 eign governments, as they appear from 
 time to time in the occurrences of this 
 changeful world. And the Constitution 
 and the laws, if an insurrection exists 
 against the government of any State, 
 rendering it necessary to appear with 
 an armed force, make it his duty to call 
 out the militia and suppress it. 
 
 Two things may here be properly con- 
 sidered. The first is, that the Constitu- 
 tion declares that the United States shall 
 protect every State against domestic vio- 
 lence; and the law of 1795, making pro- 
 vision for caiTying this constitutional 
 duty into effect in aU proper cases, de- 
 clares, that, "in case of an insurrection 
 in any State against the government 
 thereof, it shall be lawful for the Presi- 
 dent of the United States to call out the 
 militia of other States to suppress such 
 insurrection." These constitutional and 
 legal provisions make it the indispensa- 
 ble duty of the President to decide, in 
 cases of commotion, what is the rightful 
 government of the State. He cannot 
 avoid such decision. And in this case 
 he decided, of course, that the existing 
 government, the charter government, 
 was the rightful government. He could 
 not possibly have decided otherwise. 
 1 Mr. Tyler 
 
 In the next place, if events had made 
 it necessary to call out the militia, and 
 the officers and soldiers of such militia, 
 in protecting the existing government, 
 had done precisely what the defendants 
 in this case did, could an action have 
 been maintained against them? Xo 
 one would assert so absurd a propo.^i- 
 tion. 
 
 In reply to the requisition of the Gov- 
 ernor, the President stated that he did 
 not think it W'as yet time for the appli- 
 cation of force; but he wrote a letter to 
 the Secretary of War, in which he d* 
 rected him to confer with the Governa. 
 of Rhode Island ; and, whenever it should 
 appear to them to be necessary, to call 
 out from Massachusetts and Connecticut 
 a militia force sufficient to terminate at 
 once this insurrection, by the authority 
 of the government of the United States. 
 We are at no loss, therefore, to know 
 how the executive government of the 
 United States treated this insurrection. 
 It was regarded as fit to be suppressed. 
 That is manifest from the President's 
 letters to the Secretary of War and to 
 Governor King. 
 
 Now, the eye of this court must be 
 directed to the proceedings of the gen- 
 eral government, which had its attention 
 called to the subject, and which did insti- 
 tute proceedings respecting it. And the 
 court will learn from the proceedings of 
 the executive branch of the government, 
 and of the two chambers above us, how 
 the disturbances in Rhode Island were 
 regarded ; whether they were looked upon 
 as the establishment of any government, 
 or as a mere pure, unauthorized, un- 
 qualified insurrection against the author- 
 ity of the existing government of the 
 State. 
 
 I say, therefore, that, upon that 
 ground, these facts are not facts which 
 this court can inquire into, or which the 
 court below could try ; because they are 
 facts going to prove (if they prove any 
 thing) the establishment of a new sov- 
 ereignty; and that is a question to be 
 settled elsewhere and otherwise. From 
 the very nature of the case, it is not a 
 question to be decided by judicial in- 
 quii-y. Take, for example, one of tha 
 
548 
 
 THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 points which it involves. My adversary 
 offered to prove that the constitution 
 M'as adopted by a majority of the people 
 of Rhode Island ; by a large majority, as 
 he alleges. What does this offer call on 
 your honors to do? "Why, to ascertain, 
 by proof, what is the number of citizens 
 of Rhode Island, and how many attended 
 the meetings at which the delegates to 
 the convention were elected; and then 
 you have to add tliera all up, and prove 
 by testimony the qualifications of every 
 one of tliem to be an elector. It is 
 enough to state such a proposition to 
 show its absurdity. As none such ever 
 was sustained in a court of law, so none 
 can be or ought to be sustained. Ob- 
 serve that minutes of proceedings can 
 be no proof, for they were made by no 
 authentic persons; registers were kept 
 by no warranted officei's; chairmen and 
 moderators were chosen without author- 
 ity. In short, there are no official rec- 
 ords; there is no testimony in the case 
 but parol. Chief Justice Durfee has 
 stated this so plainly, that I need not 
 dwell upon it. 
 
 But, again, I say you cannot look into 
 the facts attempted to be proved, be- 
 cause of the certainty of tlie continuance 
 of the old government till the new and 
 legal constitution went into effect on the 
 3d of May, 1843. To prove that there 
 was another constitution of two days' 
 duration would be ridiculous. And I 
 say that the decision of Rhode Island 
 herself, by lier legislature, by her execu- 
 tive, by the adjudication of her highest 
 court of law, on the trial of Dorr, has 
 eluit up the whole case. Do you propose, 
 — I will not put it in that form, — but 
 would it be proper for this court to 
 reverse that adjudication? That de- 
 clares that the judges of Rhode Island 
 know nothing of the " People's Consti- 
 tution." Is it possible, then, for this 
 court, or for the court below, to know 
 any thing of it? 
 
 It appears to me that, if there were 
 nothing else in the case, the proceedings 
 of Rhode Island herself must close every- 
 body's moutli, in the court and out of 
 it. Rliode Island is competent to decide 
 the qut'stion herself, and everybody else 
 
 ought to be bound by her decision 
 And she has decided it. 
 
 And it is but a branch of this to saj , 
 according to my second proposition, — 
 
 2. That if every thing offered had been 
 proved, if in the nature of the case these 
 facts and proceedings could have been 
 re.'jeived as proof, the court coidd not 
 have listened to them, because everyone 
 of them is regarded by the State in 
 which they took place as a criminal act. 
 Who can derive any authority from acts 
 declared to be criminal? Tlie very pro- 
 ceedings which are now set up here 
 show that this pretended constitution 
 was founded upon acts which the legis- 
 lature of the State had provided punish- 
 ment for, and which the courts of the 
 State have punished. All, therefore, 
 which the plaintiff has attempted to 
 prove, are acts which he was not allowed 
 to prove, because they were criminal in 
 themselves, and have been .so treated 
 and punished, so far as the State gov- 
 ernment, in its discretion, has thought 
 proper to punish them. 
 
 3. Tiiirdly, and lastly, I say that there 
 is no evidence offered, nor has any dis- 
 tinct allegation been made, that there 
 was an actual government established 
 and put in operation to displace the 
 Charter government, even for a single 
 day. That is evident enough. You 
 find the whole embraced in those two 
 days, the 3d and 4th of ]SIay. The 
 French revolution was thought to be 
 soniew liat rapid. That took three days. 
 But this work was accomplished in two. 
 It is all there, and what is it? Its birth, 
 its whole life, and its death were accom- 
 plished in forty-eight hours. AVhat does 
 it appear that the members of this gov- 
 ernment did? Why, they voted tliat A 
 .should be treasurer, and C, secrota'T, 
 and Mr. Dorr, governor; and chose oHi- 
 cers of the Supreme Court. But did 
 ever any man under that authority at- 
 tempt to exercise a particle of otlieial 
 power? Did any man ever bring a suit? 
 Did ever an offic<M- make an arrest? Did 
 any act proceed from any member of 
 this government, or from any agent of 
 it, to touch a citizen of Rhode Island in 
 his person, his safety, or his property, 
 
THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 D49 
 
 BO as to make tiie i">arty answerable upon 
 ail indictiiK'iit or in a civil suit? Never. 
 It never performed ou" sinp^le act of 
 jfovernment. It never did a tliin<^ in the 
 world! All was patriotism, and all was 
 paper; and with patriotism and with 
 paper it went out on the 4th of ^lay, 
 admitting itself to be, as all must regard 
 it, a contemptible sham ! 
 
 I have nov done with the principles 
 Involved ill this case, and the questions 
 preaented on this record. 
 
 In regard to the other case, I have but 
 tew words to say. And, first, I think 
 it is to be regretted that the court below 
 i,ent up such a list of points on which it 
 was divided. I shall not go through 
 them, and shall leave it to the court to 
 say whether, after tiiey shall have dis- 
 posed of the first cause, there is any 
 thing left. I shall onlv draw attention 
 to the subject of martial law; and in 
 respect to that, instead of going back to 
 martial law as it existed in England at 
 the time the charter of Rhode Island 
 was granted, I shall merely observe that 
 martial law confers power of arrest, of 
 summary trial, and prompt execution; 
 and that when it has been proclaimed, 
 the land becomes a camp, and the law 
 of the camp is the law of the land. Mr. 
 Justice Story defines martial law to be 
 the law of war, a resort to military au- 
 thority in cases where the civil law is 
 not sufficient; and it confers summary 
 power, not to be used arbitraiily or for 
 the gratification of personal feelings of 
 hatred or revenge, but for the preserva- 
 tion of order and of the public peace. 
 The officer clothed with it is to judge of 
 the degree of force that the necessity of 
 the case may demand; and there is no 
 limit to this, except such as is to be 
 found in the nature and character of the 
 exigency. 
 
 I now take leave of this whole case. 
 That it is an interesting incident in the 
 history of our institutions, I freely ad- 
 nut. That it has come hither is a sub- 
 ject of no regret to me. I might have 
 said, that I see nothing to complain of 
 in the proceedings of what is called the 
 Charter government of Rhode Island, 
 
 except that it might perhaps have di.*- 
 creetly taken measures at an eailier 
 period for revising the constitution. If 
 in that delay it erred, it was the error 
 into which prudent and cautious men 
 would fall. As to the enormity of free- 
 hold suffrage, how long is it since Vir- 
 ginia, the parent of States, gave up her 
 freehold suffrage? How long is it since 
 nobody voted for governor in Xew York 
 without a freehold qualification? There 
 are now States in which no man can 
 vote for members of the upper branch 
 of the legislature who does not own fifty 
 acres of land. Every State requires 
 more or less of a property qualification 
 in its officers and electors; and it is for 
 discreet legislation, or constitutional pro- 
 visions, to determine what its amount 
 shall be. Even the Dorr constitution 
 had a property qualification. Accord- 
 ing to its provisions, for officers of the 
 State, to be sure, anybody could vote; 
 but its authors remembered that taxa- 
 tion and representation go together, 
 and therefore they declared that no 
 man, in any town, should vote to lay a 
 tax for town purposes who had not the 
 means to pay his portion. It said to 
 him, You cannot vote in the town of 
 Providence to levy a tax for repairing 
 the streets of Providence; but you may 
 vote for governor, and for thirteen rep- 
 resentatives from the town of Provi- 
 dence, and send them to the legislature, 
 and there they may tax the people of 
 Rhode Island at their sovereign will 
 and pleasure. 
 
 I believe that no harm can come of 
 the Rhode Island agitation in 1841, but 
 rather good. It will purify the political 
 atmosphere from some of its noxious 
 mists, and I hope it will clear men's 
 minds from untounded notions and dan- 
 gerous delusions. I hope it will bring 
 them to look at the regularity, the or- 
 der, with which we carry on what, if the 
 word were not so much abused, I would 
 call our glorious representative system of 
 popular government. Its principles will 
 stand the test of this crisis, as they have 
 stood the test and torture of others. They 
 are exposed always, and they always 
 will be exposed, to dangers. There are 
 
o50 
 
 THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 dangers from the extremes of too much 
 and of too little popular liberty; from 
 monarchy, or military despotism, on 
 one side, and from licentiousness and 
 anarchy on the other. This always 
 will be the case. The classical navi- 
 gator had been told that he must pass a 
 narrow and dangerous strait: 
 
 " Dextrum Scylla latus, laevum implacata Cha- 
 rybdis, 
 Obsid'et." 
 
 Forewarned he was alive to his danger, 
 and knew, by signs not doubtful, w here 
 he was, when he approached its scene : 
 
 "Et pemitum ingentem pelagi, pulsataque saxa, 
 Audimus longe, fractasque ad litora voces ; 
 Exsultantque vada, atcjue lestu miscentur 
 
 arense. 
 .... Nimirum haec ilia Charybdis ! " 
 
 The long-seeing sagacity of our 
 fathers enables us to know equally well 
 where we are, when we hear the voices 
 of tumultuary assemblies, and see the 
 turbulence created by numbers meeting 
 and acting without the restraints of 
 law ; and has most wisely provided con- 
 stitutional means of escape and security. 
 AVhen tiie established authority of gov- 
 ernment is openly contemned; when no 
 
 deference is paid to the regular and aa- 
 thentic declarations of the public will; 
 when assembled masses put themselves 
 above the law, and, calling themselves 
 the people, attempt by force to seize on 
 the government; when the social and 
 political order of the state is tlius threat- 
 ened with overthrow, and the spray cf 
 the waves of violent popular commotion 
 lashes the stars, — our political pi lota 
 may well cry out : 
 
 " Nimirum hsec ilia Charybdis! " 
 The prudence of the countiy, the 
 sober wisdom of the people, has thus 
 far enabled us to carry this Constitu- 
 tion, and all our constitutions, through 
 the perils which have surrounded them, 
 without running upon tlie rocks on one 
 side, or being swallowed up in the eddy- 
 ing whirlpools of the other. And I fer- 
 vently hope that this signal happiness 
 and good fortune will continue, and 
 that our children after us will ex- 
 ercise a similar prudence, and wLs- 
 dom, and justice; and that, under the 
 Divine blessing, our system of free 
 government may continue to go on, 
 with equal prosperity, to th:3 eud of 
 time. 
 
OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 ,1 SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THK 
 23d of march, 1848, ON THE BILL FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA 
 TIVES FOR RAISING A LOAN OF SIXTEEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. 
 
 [On the 2d of February, 1848, the treaty 
 called a " treaty of peace, friendsliij), Hrnits, 
 and settlement, between tlie United States 
 of America and the Mexican Republic," 
 was signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo. Tiiis 
 treaty, with the a<lvice and c;onsent of the 
 Senate, was ratified by the President of the 
 United States on the IGtli of March. In 
 the mean time, a bill, introduced into the 
 House of Representatives on the ISth of 
 February, to authorize a loan of sixteen 
 millions of dollars for the purpose of carry- 
 ing on the war, passed through that house, 
 and was considered in the Senate. Other 
 war measures were considered and adopted 
 by the two houses, after the signature and 
 ratification of the treaty. On the 23d of 
 March, the Sixteen Million Loan Bill being 
 imder consideration, Mr. Webster spoke as 
 follows.] 
 
 Mr. President, — On Friday a bill 
 passed the Senate for raising ten regi- 
 ments of new troops for the further 
 prosecution of the war against Mexico ; 
 and we have been informed that that 
 measure is shortly to be followed, in this 
 branch of the legislature, by a bill to 
 raise twenty regiments of volunteers for 
 the same service. I was desirous of 
 expressing my opinions against the ob- 
 ject of these bills, against the supposed 
 necessity which leads to their enact- 
 ment, and against the general policy 
 which they are apparently designed to 
 promote. Circumstances personal to 
 myself, but beyond my control, com- 
 pelled me to forego, on that day, the 
 
 execution of that design. The bill now 
 before the Senate is a measure for rais- 
 ing money to meet the exigencies of the 
 government, and to provide the means, 
 as well as for other things, for the pay 
 and support of these thirty regiments. 
 
 Sir, the scenes through which we 
 have passed, and are passing, here, are 
 various. For a fortnight the world 
 supposes we have been occupied with 
 the ratification of a treaty of peace, and 
 that within these walls, "the world 
 shut out," notes of peace, and hopes of 
 peace, nay, strong assurances of peace, 
 and indications of peace, have been 
 uttered to console and to cheer us. Sii*, 
 it has been over and over stated, and is 
 public, that we have ratified a treaty, 
 of course a treaty of peace, and, as the 
 country has been led to suppose, not 
 of an uncertain, empty, and delusive 
 peace, but of real and substantial, a 
 gratifying and an enduring peace, a 
 peace which would stanch the wounds 
 of war, prevent the further flow of 
 human blood, cut off these enormous 
 expenses, and return our friends, and 
 om- biothers, and our children, if they 
 be yet living, from the land of slaugh- 
 ter, and the land of still more dismal 
 destruction by climate, to our firesides 
 and our arms. 
 
 Hardly have these habyon notes 
 ceased upon our ears, when, in resumed 
 
 i 
 
652 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 public session, we are summoned to 
 fresh warlike operations; to create a 
 new army of thirty thousand men for 
 the further prosecution of the war; to 
 carry the war, in the language of the 
 President, still more dreadfully into the 
 vital parts of the enemy, and to press 
 home, by fire and sword, the claims we 
 make, and the gi'ounds which we insist 
 upon, against our fallen, prostrate, I 
 bad almost said, our ignoble enemy. 
 Lf we may judge from the opening 
 speech of the honorable Senator from 
 Michigan, and from other speeches that 
 have been made upon this floor, there 
 has been no time, from the commence- 
 ment of the war, when it has been moi-e 
 urgently pressed upon us, not only to 
 maintain, but to increase, our military 
 means ; not only to continue the war, 
 but to press it still more vigorously 
 than at present. 
 
 Pray, what does all this mean ? Is it, 
 I ask, confessed, then, — is it confessed 
 that we are no nearer a peace than we 
 were when we snatched up this bit of 
 paper called, or miscalled, a treaty, and 
 ratified it ? Have we yet to fight it out 
 to the utmost, as if nothing pacific had 
 intervened ? 
 
 I wish. Sir, to treat the proceedings 
 of this and of every department of the 
 government with the utmost respect. 
 The Constitution of this government, 
 and the exercise of its just powers in 
 the administration of the laws under it, 
 have been the cherished object of all 
 my unimportant life. But, if the sub- 
 ject were not one too deeply interesting, 
 I should say our proceedings here may 
 well enough cause a smile. In the 
 ordinary transaction of the foreign re- 
 lations of this and of all other govern- 
 ments, the course has been to negotiate 
 fir.'^t, and to ratify afterwards. This 
 seems to be the natural order of con- 
 ducting intercourse between foreign 
 states. We have chosen to reverse this 
 order. We ratify first, and negotiate 
 afterwards. We set up a treaty, such 
 as we find it and choose to make it. and 
 then send two ministers plenipotentiary 
 to negotiate thereupon in the cajntal of 
 the enemy- One would think, Sir, the 
 
 ordinary course of proceeding much the 
 juster; that to negotiate, to hold inter- 
 course, and come to some arrangement, 
 by authorized agents, and then to sub- 
 mit that arrangement to the sovereign 
 authority to which these agents are 
 responsible, would be always the most 
 desirable method of proceeding. It 
 strikes me that the course we have 
 adoi^ted is strange, is ev6u ^rotes/jue. 
 So far as I know, it is unprecedented in 
 the history of diplomatic intercourse. 
 Learned gentlemen on the floor of the 
 Senate, interested to defend and pro- 
 tect this course, may, in their extensive 
 reading, have found examples of it. 
 I know of none. 
 
 Sir, we are in possession, by military 
 power, of New Mexico and California, 
 countries belonging hitherto to the 
 United States of ^lexico. We are in- 
 formed by the President that it is his 
 purpose to retain them, to consider 
 them as territory fit to be attached to 
 these United States of America; and 
 our military operations and designs now 
 before the Senate are to enforce this 
 claim of the executive of the United 
 States. We are to compel Mexico to 
 agree that the part of her dominions 
 called Xew Mexico, and that called Cali- 
 fornia, shall be ceded to us. We are in 
 possession, as is said, and she shall yield 
 her title to us. This is the precise ob- 
 ject of this new army of thirty thousand 
 men. Sir, it is the identical object, in 
 my judgment, for which the war was 
 originally commenced, for which it has 
 hitherto been prosecuted, and in further- 
 ance of which this treaty is to be used 
 but as one means to bring about this 
 general result; that general result de- 
 pending, after all, on our own superior 
 power, and on the necessity of submit- 
 ting to any terms which we may pre- 
 scribe to fallen, fallen, fallen Mexico! 
 
 Sir, the members composing the other 
 house, the more popular branch of the 
 legislature, have all been elected since, 
 I had almost said the fatal, I will say 
 the remarkable, event.s of the 11th and 
 l;3th days of May, 1846. The other 
 house has pa.>;sed a resolution aflirniing 
 that " the war with Mexico wa^ bejruu 
 
OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 553 
 
 unconstitutionally and unnecessarily by 
 tlie executive government of the United 
 States." I concur in that sentiment; I 
 hold that to be the most recent and au- 
 thentic expression of the will and opin- 
 ion of the majority of the people of the 
 United States. 
 
 There is, Sir, another proposition, not 
 io authentically announced hitherto, but, 
 in ny judgment, equally true and equally 
 capable of demonstration; and that is, 
 that this war w^as begun, has been con- 
 tinued, and is now prosecuted, for the 
 great and leading purpose of the acqui- 
 sition of new territory, out of which to 
 bring new States, with their Mexican 
 population, into this our Union of the 
 United States. 
 
 If unavowed at first, this purpose did 
 not remain unavowed long. However 
 often it may be said that we did not go 
 to war for conquest, 
 
 " credat Judaeus Apella, 
 Non ego," 
 
 yet the moment we get possession of 
 territory we must retain it and make it 
 our own. Now I think that this origi- 
 nal object has not been changed, has not 
 been varied. Sir, I think it exists in 
 the eyes of those who originally contem- 
 plated it, and who began the war for it, 
 as plain, as attractive to them, and from 
 which they no more avert their eyes now 
 than they did then or have done at any 
 time since. We have compelled a treaty 
 of cession ; we know in our consciences 
 that it is compelled. We use it as an 
 instrument and an agency, in conjunc- 
 tion with other instruments and other 
 agencies of a more formidable and de- 
 structive character, to enforce the ces- 
 sion of Mexican territoiy, to acquire 
 territory for new States to be added to 
 this Union. We know, every intelli- 
 gent man knows, that there is no stronger 
 desire in the breast of a Mexican citizen 
 tlian to retain the t«rritoiy which belongs 
 to the republic. We know that the Mex- 
 ican people will part with it, if part they 
 must, with regret, with pangs of sorrow. 
 That we know ; we know it is all forced ; 
 And therefore, because we know it must 
 Dt! forre.d. because we know t]in.t C-wbether 
 
 the government, which we consider our 
 creature, do or do not agree to it) the 
 Mexican people will never accede to the 
 terms of this treaty but througli the im- 
 pulse of absolute necessity, and the im- 
 pression made upon them by absolute 
 and irresistible force, therefore we pur- 
 pose to overwhelm them with another 
 army. We purpose to raise another 
 army of ten thousand regulars and 
 twenty thousand volunteers, and to poui 
 them in and upon the Mexican people. 
 
 Xow, Sir, I should be happy to agree, 
 notwithstanding all this tocsin, and all 
 tliis cry of all the Semproninses in the 
 land, that their " voices are still for war," 
 — I shoidd be happy to agree, and sub- 
 stantially I do agree, to the opinion of 
 the Senator from South Carolina. I 
 think I have myself uttered the senti- 
 ment, within a fortnight, to. the same 
 effect, that, after all, the war with Mexico 
 w substantially/ ocer, that there can be no 
 more fighting. In the present state of 
 things, my opinion is that the people of 
 this country will not sustain the war. 
 They will not go for its heavy expenses; 
 they will not find any gratification in 
 putting the bayonet to the throats of 
 the ]\Iexican people. For my part, I 
 hope the ten regiment bill will never be- 
 come a law. Three weeks ago I should 
 have entertained that hope with the ut- 
 most confidence; events instruct me to 
 abate my confidence. I still hope it will 
 not pass. 
 
 And here, I dare say, I shall be called 
 by some a " JNIexican Whig." The man 
 who can stand up here and say that he 
 hopes that what the administration pro- 
 jects, and tlie further prosecution of the 
 war with Mexico requires, may not be 
 carried into effect, must be an enemy to 
 his country, or what gentlemen have 
 considered the same thing, an enemy to 
 the President of the United States, and 
 to his administration and his party. lie 
 is a Mexican. Sir, I think very badly 
 of the Mexican character, high and low, 
 out and out; but names do not terrify 
 me. Besides, if I have suffered in this 
 respect, if I have rendered myself sub- 
 ject to the reproaches of these stipendiarj 
 presses, these hired abusers of the motives 
 
554 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 of public men, I have the honor, ou tliis 
 occasion, to be in very respectable com- 
 pany. In the reproachful sense of that 
 term, I don't know a greater Mexican 
 in this body than the honorable Senator 
 from Michigan, the chairman of the 
 Committee on ^lilitary Ali'airs. 
 
 Mr. Cass. Will the gentleman be good 
 enough to explain what sort of a Mexican 
 I am? 
 
 O:: th- resumption of the bill in the 
 Senate the otlier day, the gentleman told 
 us that its principal object was to frighten 
 Mexico; it would touch his humanity 
 too much to huj-t her! He would fright- 
 en her — 
 
 Mr. Cass. Does the gentleman affirm 
 that I said tliati 
 
 Yes; twice. 
 
 Mb. Cass. No, Sir, I beg your pardon, 
 I did not say it. I did not say it would 
 touch my humanity to hurt her. 
 
 Be it so. 
 
 Mr. Cass. Will the honorable Senator 
 allow me to repeat my statement of the ob- 
 ject of the bill ■? I said it was twofold : 
 first, that it would enable us to prosecute 
 the war, if necessary ; and, second, that it 
 would show Mexico we were prepared to 
 do so ; and thus, by its moral effect, would 
 induce her to ratify the treaty. 
 
 The gentleman said, that the princi- 
 pal object of the bill was to frighten 
 Mexico, and that this would be more 
 humane than to harm her. 
 
 Mr. Cass. That's true. 
 
 Well, Sir, the remarkable character- 
 istic of that speech, that which makes it 
 BO much a Mexican speech, is, that the 
 gentleman spoke it in the hearing of 
 Mexico, as well as in the hearing of this 
 Senate. We are accused here, because 
 T^ hat we say is heard by Mexico, and 
 Mexico derives encouragement from what 
 is said here. And yet the honorable 
 member comes forth and tells ^lexico 
 that the principal object of the bill is to 
 frighten her! The words have passed 
 along the wires; they are on the Gulf, 
 and are Hoating away to Vera Cruz; and 
 when they get there, they will signify to 
 Mexico, " Afttn- all, ye good Mexicans, 
 
 my principal object is to fiighten you; 
 and to the end that you may not be 
 frightened too much, I have given you 
 this indication of my purpose." 
 
 But, Sir, in any view of this case, in 
 any view of the proper policy of this 
 government, to be pursued according to 
 any man's apprehension and judgment, 
 where is the necessity for this augmenta- 
 tion, by regiments, of the military force 
 of the coimtry? I hold in my hand here 
 a note, which I suppose to be substan- 
 tially correct, of the present militaiy 
 force of the United States. I cannot 
 answer for its entire accuracy, but I be- 
 lieve it to be substantially according to 
 fact. We have twentj^-five regiments of 
 regular troops, of various arms; if full, 
 they would amount to 28,9G0 rank and 
 file, and including officers to 30,296 men. 
 These, with the exception of six or seven 
 hundred men, are now all out of the 
 United States and in field service in 
 Mexico, or en route to Mexico. These 
 regiments ai-e not full; casualties and 
 the climate have sadly reduced their 
 numbers. If the recruiting service were 
 now to yield ten thousand men, it would 
 not more than fill up these regiments, so 
 that every brigadier and colonel and cap- 
 tain should have his appropriate and his 
 full command. Here is a caU, then, on 
 the country now for the enlistment of 
 ten thousand men, to fill up the regi- 
 ments in the foreign service of tlie 
 United States. 
 
 I understand. Sir, that there is a le- 
 port from General Scott; from General 
 Scott, a man who has performed tlie 
 most brilliant campaign on recent mili- 
 tary record, a man who has warred 
 against the enemy, warred against the 
 climate, warred against a thousand uu- 
 proj)itious circumstances, and has car- 
 ried the flag of his country to the capital 
 of tlie enemy, honorably, proudly, fiU' 
 inanely, to his own permanent honor, 
 and the great military credit of his coun- 
 try , — General Scott; and where is he ? 
 At Puebla! at Puebla, undergoing an 
 inquiry before his inferiors in rank, and 
 otlier persons without military rank 
 while the high powers he has exercised, 
 and exercised with so nuich distinction, 
 
OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 555 
 
 are transferred to another, I do not say 
 to one unworthy of them, but to one in- 
 ferior in rank, station, and experience to 
 himself. 
 
 But General Scott reports, as I un- 
 derstand, that, in February, there were 
 twenty thousand regular troops under 
 Lis command and en route, and we have 
 thirty regiments of volunteers for the 
 war. If full, this would make thirty- 
 foar thousand men, or, including officers, 
 thirty-five thousand. So that, if the regi- 
 ments were full, there is at this moment 
 a number of troops, regular and volun- 
 teer, of not less than fifty-five or sixty 
 thousand men, including recruits on the 
 way. And with these twenty thousand 
 men in the field, of regular troops, there 
 were also ten thousand volunteers ; mak- 
 ing, of regulars and volunteers under 
 General Scott, thirty thousand men. 
 The Senator from Michigan knows these 
 things better than I do, but I believe this 
 is very nearly the fact. Now all these 
 troops are regularly officered ; there is no 
 deficiency, in the line or in the staff, of 
 officers. They are all full. Where 
 there is any deficiency it consists of 
 men. 
 
 Xow, Sir, there may be a plausible 
 reason for saying that there is difficulty 
 in recruiting at home for the supply of 
 deficiency in the volunteer regiments. 
 It may be said that volunteers choose to 
 enlist under officers of their own knowl- 
 edge and selection; they do not incline 
 to enlist as individual volunteers, to join 
 regiments abroad, under officers of whom 
 they know nothing. There may be some- 
 thing in that; but pray what conclusion 
 does it lead to, if not to this, that all 
 these regiments must moulder away, by 
 casualties or disease, until the privates 
 are less in number than the officers 
 themselves. 
 
 But however that may be with respect 
 to volunteers, in regard to recruiting for 
 the regular service, in filling up the regi- 
 ments by pay and bounties according to 
 existing laws, or new laws, if new ones 
 are necessary, there is no reason on earth 
 why we should now create five hundred 
 new officers, for the purpose of getting 
 ten thousand more men. The officers 
 
 are already there; in that respect there 
 is no deficiency. All that i.s wanted ia 
 men, and there is place for the men; 
 and I suppose no gentleman, here or 
 elsewhere, thinks that recruiting will go 
 on faster than would be necessary to ob- 
 tain men to fill up the deficiencies in the 
 regiments abroad. 
 
 But now, Sir, what do we want of a 
 greater force than we have in Mexico? 
 I am not saying. What do we want of a 
 force greater than we can supply? but, 
 What is the object of bringing these 
 new regiments into the field? What do 
 we propose? There is no army to fight. 
 I suppose there are not five hundred 
 men under arms in any part of Mexico ; 
 probably not half that number, except 
 in one place. Mexico is prostrate. It 
 is not the government that resists us. 
 Why, it is notorious that the government 
 of ]Mexico is on our side, that it is an in- 
 strument by which we hope to establish 
 such a peace, and accomplish such a 
 treaty, as we like. As far as I under- 
 stand the matter, the government of 
 INIexico owes its life and breath and 
 being to the support of our arms, and 
 to the hope, I do not say how inspired, 
 that somehow or other, and at no dis- 
 tant period, she will have the pecuniary 
 means of carrying it on, from our three 
 millions, or our twelve millions, or from 
 some of our other millions. 
 
 What do we propose to do, then, with 
 these thirty I'egiraents which it is de^ 
 signed to throw into Mexico? Are we 
 going to cut the throats of her people? 
 Are we to thrust the sword deeper and 
 deeper into the " vital parts " of INIexico? 
 What is it proposed to do? Sir, I can 
 see no object in it; and yet, while we 
 are pressed and urged to adopt this 
 proposition to raise ten and twenty 
 regiments, we are told, and the public 
 is told, and the public believes, that we 
 are on the verge of a safe and an hon- 
 orable peace. Every one looks every 
 morning for tidings of a confirmed peace, 
 or of confirmed hopes of peace. We 
 gather it from the administration, and 
 from every organ of the administration 
 from Dan to Beersheba. And yet war- 
 like preparations, the incurring of ex- 
 
556 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR, 
 
 peuses. the imposition of new cluarges 
 upon the treasury, are pressed hers, as 
 if peace were not in all our thoughts, at 
 least not in any of our expectations. 
 
 Now, Sir, I propose to hold a plain 
 talk to-day; and I say that, according to 
 my best judgment, the object of the bill 
 is patronage, office, the gratification of 
 friends This very measure for raising 
 ten regiments creates four or five hun- 
 dred officers; colonels, subalterns, and 
 not them only, for for all these I feel 
 6ome respect, but there are also pay- 
 masters, contractors, persons engaged in 
 the transportation service, commissaries, 
 even down to sutlers, et id </enus omne, 
 people who handle the public money 
 without facing the foe, one and all of 
 whom are true descendants, or if not, 
 true representatives, of Ancient Pistol, 
 who said, 
 
 " I shall sutler be 
 Unto the camp, and prolits will accrue." 
 
 Sir, I hope, with no disrespect for the 
 applicants, and the aspirants, and the 
 patriots (and among them are some sin- 
 cere patriots) who would fight for their 
 country, and those others who are not 
 ready to fight, but who are willing to be 
 paid, — with due respect for all of them 
 according to their several degrees and 
 their merits, I hope they will all be dis- 
 appointed. I hope that, as the pleasant 
 season advances, the whole may find it 
 for their interest to place themselves, of 
 mild mornings, in the cars, and take 
 their destination to their respective 
 places of honorable private occupation 
 and of civil employment. They have 
 my good wishes that they may find the 
 way to their homes from the Avenue and 
 the Capitol, and from the purlieus of the 
 President's house, in good health them- 
 selves, and that they may find their fam- 
 ilies all very happy to receive them. 
 
 But, Sir, to speak more seriously, this 
 war was waged for the object of creating 
 new States, on the southern frontier of 
 the United States, out of Mexican terri- 
 tory, and with such population jvs could 
 be found resident thereupon. I have 
 opposed this object. I am against all ac- 
 cessions of territory to form new Slates. 
 And this is no matter of sentimentality, 
 
 which I am to parade before mass meet> 
 ings or before my constituents at home 
 It is not a matter with me of declama- 
 tion, or of regret, or of expressed repug- 
 nance. It is a matter of firm, unchange- 
 able purpose. I yield nothing to the 
 force of circumstances that have oc- 
 curred, or that I can consider as likely 
 to occur. And therefore I say. Sir, 
 that, if I were asked to-day wliether, 
 for the sake of peace, I would take a 
 treaty for adding two new States to the 
 Union on our southern border, I would 
 say, No! distinctly, Xo! And I wish 
 every man in the United States to un- 
 derstand that to be my judgment and 
 my purpose. 
 
 I said upon our southern border, be- 
 cause the present proposition takes that 
 locality. I would say the same of the 
 western, the northeastern, or of any 
 other border. I resist to-day, and for 
 ever, and to the end, any proposition 
 to add any foreign territory, south or 
 west, north or east, to the States of this 
 Union, as they are constituted and held 
 together under the Constitution. I do 
 not want the colonists of England on 
 the north; and as little do I want the 
 popidation of Mexico on the south. I 
 resist and reject all, and all with equal 
 resolution. Therefore I say, that, if the 
 question were put to me to-day, whether 
 1 would take peace under the present 
 state of the country, distressed as it is, 
 during the existence of a war odious as 
 this is, under circumstances so afiiictive 
 as now exist to humanity, and so dis- 
 turbing to the business of those whom I 
 represent, — I say still, if it were put to 
 me whether I would have peac*, with 
 new States, I would say. No I no ! And 
 that because. Sir, in my judgment, there 
 is no necessity of being driven into that 
 dilemma. Other gentlemen think dif- 
 ferently. I hold no man's conscience; 
 but I mean to make a clean breast of it 
 myself; and I protest that I see no rea- 
 son, I believe there is none, wliy we 
 cannot obtain as safe a peace, as honor- 
 able and as prompt a peace, without ter- 
 ritory as with it. The two things are 
 separable. There is no necessary con- 
 nection between them. ^Mexico does not 
 
OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 557 
 
 wish us to take her territory, while she 
 receives our money. Far from it. Slie 
 yields her asseut, if she yields it at all, 
 i-eluctaiitly, and we all know it. It is 
 the result of force, and there is no man 
 here who does not know that. And let 
 me say, Sir, that, if this Trist paper 
 shall finally be rejected in Mexico, it is 
 most likely to be because those who un- 
 der our protection hold the power there 
 cannot persuade the Mexican Congress 
 or people to agree to this cession of ter- 
 ritory. The tiling most likely to break 
 up what we now expect to take place is 
 the repugnance of the Mexican people to 
 part with their territory. They would 
 prefer to keep their territory, and that 
 ■we should keep our money; as I prefer 
 we should keep our money, and they 
 their territory. We shall see. I pretend 
 to no powers of prediction. I do not 
 know what may happen. The times are 
 full of strange events. But I think it 
 certain that, if the treaty which has 
 gone to Mexico shall fail to be ratified, 
 it will be because of the aversion of the 
 Mexican Congress, or the Mexican peo- 
 ple, to cede the territory, or any part of 
 it, belonging to their republic. 
 
 I have said that I would rather have 
 no peace for the present, than have a 
 peace which brings territoiy for new 
 States; and the reason is, that we shall 
 get peace as soon without territoi-y as 
 with it, more safe, more durable, and 
 vastly more honorable to us, the great 
 republic of the world. 
 
 But we hear gentlemen say, We must 
 have some territory, the people demand 
 it. I deny it ; at least, I see no proof of 
 it whatever. I do not doubt that there 
 are individuals of an enterprising char- 
 acter, disposed to emigrate, who know 
 nothing about New Mexico but that it 
 is far off, and nothing about California 
 but that it is still farther off, who are 
 tired of the dull pursuits of agriculture 
 and of civil life; that there are hundreds 
 and thousands of such persons to whom 
 whatsoever is new and distant is attrac- 
 tive. They feel the spirit of borderers ; 
 and the spirit of a borderer, I take it, is 
 to be tolerably contented with his condi- 
 tion where he is, until somebody goes to 
 
 regions beyond him ; and then he is all 
 eagerness to take up his traps and go 
 still farther than he who has thus got in 
 advance of him. With such men the 
 desire to emigrate is an irresistible pas- 
 sion. At least so thought that saga- 
 cious observer of human nature, M. de 
 Talleyrand, when he travelled in this 
 country in 1794. 
 
 But I say I do not find anywhere anj 
 considerable and respectable body of 
 persons who want more territory, and 
 such territory. Twenty-four of us last 
 year in this house voted against the* 
 prosecution of the war for territory, be- 
 cause we did not want it, both Southern 
 and Xorthern men . I believe the South- 
 ern gentlemen who concurred in that 
 vote found themselves, even when they 
 had gone against what might be sup- 
 posed to be local feelings and partiali- 
 ties, sustained on the general policy of 
 not seeking territory, and by the acqui- 
 sition of territory bringing into our pol- 
 itics certain embarrassing and embroil- 
 ing questions and considerations. I do 
 not learn that they suffered from the 
 advocacy of such a sentiment. I believe 
 they w^ere supported in it ; and I believe 
 that through the greater part of the 
 South, and even of the Southwest, there 
 is no prevalent opinion in favor of ac- 
 quiring territory, and such territory, and 
 of the augmentation of our population 
 by such an accession. And such, I 
 need not say, is, if not the undivided, 
 the preponderating sentiment of all the 
 Xorth. 
 
 But it is said we must take territory 
 for the sake of peace. We must take 
 territory. It is the will of the Presi- 
 dent. If we do not now take what he 
 offers, we may fare worse. Mr. Folk 
 will take no less, that he is fixed upon. 
 He is unmovable. He — has — put — 
 down — his — foot! Well, Sir, he put 
 it down upon "fifty-four forty," but it 
 did n't stay. I speak of the President, 
 as of all Presidents, without disrespect. 
 I know of no reason why his opinion 
 and his will, his purpose, declared to be 
 final, should control us, any more than 
 our piu'pose, from equally conscientious 
 motives, and under as high responsibili- 
 
558 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 ties, should control him. "We think he 
 is firm, and will not be moved. I should 
 be sorry, Sir, very sorry uideed, that 
 we should entertain more respect for the 
 firmness of the individual at the head of 
 the government than we entertain for 
 our own firmness. He stands out against 
 us. Do we fear to stand out against 
 Lim? For one, I do not. It appears to 
 me to be a sla\nsh doctrine. For one, I 
 en willing to meet the issue, and go 
 to the people aU over this broad land. 
 Sliall we take peace without new States, 
 or refuse peace without new States? I 
 will stand upon that, and trust the peo- 
 ple. And I do that because I think it 
 right, and because I have no distrust of 
 the people. I am not unwilling to put 
 it to their sovereign decision and arbi- 
 tration. I hold this to be a question 
 vital, permanent, elementary, in the fu- 
 ture prosperity of the country and the 
 maintenance of the Constitution ; and I 
 am willing to trust that question to the 
 people. I prefer that it should go to 
 them, because, if what I take to be a 
 great constitutional principle, or what is 
 essential to its maintenance, is to be 
 broken down, let it be the act of the 
 people themselves ; it shall never be my 
 act. I, therefore, do not distrust the 
 people. I am willing to take their sen- 
 timent, from the Gulf to the British 
 Provinces, and from the ocean to the 
 iMissom-i: Will you continue the war for 
 territory, to be purchased, after all, at 
 an enormous price, a price a thousand 
 times the value of all its purcliases, or 
 take peace, contenting yourselves with 
 the honor we have reaped by the mili- 
 tary achievements of the armyV Will 
 you take peace without territory, and 
 preserve the integrity of tlie Constitu- 
 tion of the comitry? I am entirely will- 
 ing to stand upon that question. I will 
 therefore take the issue: Peace, with no 
 new States, keeping our own money our- 
 selves, or war till new Slates shall he ac- 
 quired, and vast sums paid. That is tlie 
 true issue. I am willing to leave that 
 before the people and to the people, be- 
 cause it is a question for tliemselves. If 
 they support me and think with me, 
 very well. If otherwise, if tliey will 
 
 have territory and add new States to 
 the Union, let them do so; and let them 
 be the artificers of their own fortune, 
 for good or for evil. 
 
 But, Sir, we tremble before executive 
 power. The truth cannot be ?oncealed. 
 We tremble before executive power! 
 Mr. Polk will take no less than this. If 
 we do not take this, the king's anger 
 may kindle, and he will give us what is 
 worse. 
 
 But now. Sir, who and what is Mr. 
 Polk? I speak of him with no manner 
 of disrespect. I mean, thereby, only to 
 a.sk who and what is the President of 
 the United States for the current mo- 
 ment. He is in the last year of his ad- 
 ministration. Formally, officially, it can 
 only be drawn out till the fourth of 
 ^larch, while really and substantially we 
 know that two short months will, or may, 
 produce events that will render the dura- 
 tion of that ofiicial term of very little im- 
 portance. We are on the eve of a Presi- 
 dential election. That machinery which 
 is employed to collect public opinion or 
 party opinion will be put in operation two 
 months hence. AVe shall see its result. 
 It may be that the present incumbent of 
 the Presidential office w ill be again pre- 
 sented to his party friends and admirers 
 for their suffrages for the next Presiden- 
 tial term. I do not say how probable or 
 improbable this is. Perhaps it is not 
 entirely probable. Suppose this not to 
 be the result, what then? Why, then 
 Mr. Polk becomes as absolutely insig- 
 nificant as any respectable man among 
 the public men of the United States. 
 Honored in private life, valued for his 
 pi-ivate character, respectable, never em- 
 inent, in public life, he will, from the 
 moment a new star arises, have just as 
 little influence as you or I; and, so far 
 as I am concerned, that certainly is little 
 enough. 
 
 Sir, political partisans, and aspirants, 
 and office-seekers, are not sunflowers. 
 They do not 
 
 " turn to their god when he sets 
 The same look which they turned when he rose." 
 
 Xo, Sir, if the respectable gentleman 
 now at the head of the government ba 
 
OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 559 
 
 nomimited, there will be those who will 
 commend his consistency, who will be 
 bound to maintain it, for the interest of 
 his party friends will require it. It will 
 be (lone. If otherwise, who is there in 
 the whole length and breadth of the 
 land that will care for the consistency 
 of the present incumbent of the office? 
 There will then be new objects. " Man- 
 ifest destiny" will have pointed out 
 some other man. Sir, the eulogies are 
 now wi'itten, the conunendations are 
 ah-cady elaborated. I do not say every 
 thing fulsome, but every thing pane- 
 gyi-ical, has already been written out, 
 with blanks for names, to be filled 
 when the convention shall adjourn. 
 When "manifest destiny" shall be un- 
 rolled, all these strong panegj'rics, wher- 
 ever they may light, made beforehand, 
 laid up in pigeon-holes, studied, framed, 
 emblazoned, and embossed, will all come 
 out; and then there will be found to be 
 somebody in the United States whose 
 merits have been strangely overlooked, 
 marked out by Providence, a kind of 
 miracle, while all will wonder that no- 
 body ever thought of him before, as a 
 fit, and the only fit, man to be at the 
 head of this great republic ! 
 
 I shrink not, therefore, from any thing 
 that I feel to be my duty, from any ap- 
 prehension of the importance and impos- 
 ing dignity, and the power of will, as- 
 cribed to the present incumbent of office. 
 But I wish we possessed that power of 
 will. I wish we had that firmness. Yes, 
 Sir, I wish we had adherence. I wish we 
 could gather something from the spirit 
 of our brave forces, M'ho have met the 
 enemy under circumstances most adverse 
 and have stood the shock. I wish we 
 could imitate Zachary Taylor in his biv- 
 ouac on the field of Buena Vista. He 
 said he "would remain for the night; 
 he would feel the enemy in the mornmg, 
 and try his position." I wish, before 
 we surrender, we could make up our 
 minds to '■'feel the enemy, and try his 
 position," and I think we should find 
 him, as Taylor did, under the early sun, 
 on his way to San Luis Potosi. That is 
 my judgment. 
 
 But, Sir, I come to the all-absorbing 
 
 question, more particularly, of the crea- 
 tion of New States. 
 
 Some years before I entered public 
 life, Louisiana had been obtained under 
 the treaty with France. Shortly after, 
 Florida was obtained under the treaty 
 with Spain. These two countries were 
 situated on our frontier, and command- 
 ed the outlets of the great rivers which 
 flow into the Gnlf. As I have had oc- 
 casion to say, in the first of these in- 
 stances, the President of tlie United 
 States ' supposed that an amendment 
 of the Constitution was required. lie 
 acted upon that supposition. Mr. Madi- 
 son was Secretary of State, and, upon 
 the suggestion of the President, pro- 
 posed that the proper amendment to the 
 Constitution should be submitted, to 
 bring Louisiana into the Union. Mr. 
 ^Madison drew it, and submitted it to 
 ^Ir. Adams, as I have understood. Mr. 
 IMadison did not go upon any general 
 idea that new States might be admitted ; 
 he did not proceed to a general amend- 
 ment of the Constitution in that respect. 
 The amendment which he proposed and 
 submitted to jNIr. Adams was a simple 
 declaration, by a new article, that " the 
 Province of Louisiana is hereby declared 
 to be part and parcel of the United 
 States." But public opinion, seeing the 
 great importance of the acqiiisition, took 
 a turn favorable to the alfirmation of the 
 power. The act was acquiesced in, and 
 Louisiana became a part of the Union, 
 without any amendment of the Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 On the example of Louisiana, Florida 
 was admitted. 
 
 Now, Sir, I consider those transactions 
 as passed, settled, legalized. There they 
 stand as matters of political history. 
 They are facts against which it would 
 be idle at this day to contend. 
 
 My first agency in matters of this kind 
 was upon the proposition for admitting 
 Texas into thi.s Union. That I thought 
 it my duty to oppose, upon the general 
 ground of opposing all formation of new 
 States out of foreign territory, and, I 
 may add, and I ought to add in justica 
 of States in which slaves weie t) be 'ep- 
 
 1 Mr. Jefferson 
 
560 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 resented in the Congress of the United 
 States. I was opposed to this on the 
 ground of its inequality. It happened 
 to me, Sir, to be called upon to address 
 a political meeting in New York, in 
 1837, soon after the recognition of Texan 
 Independence. I state now. Sir, what 
 I have often stated before, that no man, 
 from the first, has been a more sincere 
 well-wisher to the goA'ernment and the 
 people of Texas than myself. I looked 
 upon the achievement of their indepen- 
 dence in the battle of San Jacinto as an 
 extraordinary, almost a marvellous, in- 
 cident in the affaii'S of mankind. I 
 was among the first disposed to ac- 
 knowledge her independence. But from 
 the first, down to this moment, I have 
 opposed, as far as I was able, the an- 
 nexation of new States to this Union. 
 I stated my reasons on the occasion now 
 referred to, in language which I have 
 now before me, and which I beg to pre- 
 sent to the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Webster here read tlie passage from 
 his speech at Niblo's Saloon, Xew York, 
 which will be found in a previous part 
 of this work, pages 429, 4.j0, beginning, 
 " But it cannot be disguised. Gentlemen, 
 that a desire, or an intention, is alreadj- 
 manifested to annex Texas to the United 
 States." 
 
 Well, Sir, for a few years I held a 
 position in the executive administration 
 of the government. I left the Depart- 
 ment of State in 1843, in the month of 
 J\Iay. AVitliin a month after, another 
 (an intelligent gentleman, for wliom I 
 cherislied a high respect, and who came 
 to a sad and untimely end) had taken 
 my place, I had occasion to know, not 
 oflicially, but from circumstances, that 
 the annexation of Texas was taken up 
 by Mr. Tyler's administration as an ad- 
 ministration measure. It was pushed, 
 pressed, insisted on; and I believe tiie 
 honorable gentleman to whom I have 
 referred * had something like a passion 
 for the accomplishment of this purpose. 
 And I am afraid that the President of 
 the United States - at that time suffered 
 liis ardent feelings not a little to control 
 
 1 Mr. Upsiiiir. 
 
 2 Mr. Tvler. 
 
 his more prudent judgment. At anj 
 rate, I saw, in 1843, that annexation 
 had become a purpose of the adminis- 
 tration. I was not in Congress nor in 
 public life. But, seeing this state of 
 things, I thought it my duty to admon- 
 ish the country, so far as I could, of the 
 existence of that pm-pose. There are 
 gentlemen at the North, many of them, 
 there are gentlemen now in the Capitol, 
 who know that, in the summer of 1843, 
 being fuUy persuaded that this purpose 
 was embraced with zeal and determina- 
 tion by the executive department of the 
 government of the United States, I 
 thought it my duty, and asked them 
 to concur with me in the attempt, to 
 make tliat purpose known to the coun- 
 try. I conferred with gentlemen of 
 distinction and influence. I proposed 
 means for exciting public attention to 
 the question of annexation, before it 
 should liave become a party question; 
 for I had learned that, when any topic 
 becomes a party question, it is in vain 
 to argue upon it. 
 
 But the optimists and the quietists, 
 and those who said. All things are well, 
 and let all things alone, discouraged, 
 discountenanced, and repressed any 
 such effort. The Xortli, they said, 
 could take care of itself; the country 
 could take care of itself, and would not 
 sustain ^Ir. Tyler in his project of ai\- 
 nexation. When the time should come, 
 they said, the power of the North would 
 be felt, and would be found sufficient to 
 resist and prevent the consummation of 
 the measure. And I could now refer to 
 paragraj^hs and articles in the most re- 
 spectable and leading journals of the 
 North, in which it was attempted to 
 produce the impression that there was 
 no danger; there could be no addition 
 of new States, and men need not alarm 
 themselves about that. 
 
 I was not in Congress, Sir, when the 
 preliminary resolutions, providing for 
 the annexation of Texas, passed. I 
 only know that, up to a very short 
 period before tlie passage of those reso- 
 hitions, the impression in that part of 
 the country of which I have s])oken 
 was, that no such measm-e could be 
 
OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 661 
 
 adopted. But I have found, in the 
 course of thirty years' experience, that 
 whatever measures the executive gov- 
 ernment may embrace and push are 
 quite likely to succeed iu the end. 
 There is always a giving way some- 
 where. The executive government 
 acts with uniformity, with steadiness, 
 with entire unity of purpose. And 
 ijcouer or later, often enough, and, ac- 
 cording to my construction of our his- 
 tory, quite too often, it effects its 
 purposes. In this way it becomes the 
 predominating power of the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Well, Sir, just before the commence- 
 ment of the present administration, the 
 resolutions for the annexation of Texas 
 were passed in CongTess. Texas com- 
 plied with the provisions of those reso- 
 lutions, and was here, or the case was 
 here, on the 2"2d day of December, 1845, 
 for her final admission into tlie Union, 
 as one of the States. I took occasion 
 then to say, that I hoped I had shown 
 all proper regard for Texas ; that I had 
 been certainly opposed to annexation; 
 that, if I should go over the whole mat- 
 ter again, I should have nothing new to 
 add; that I had acted, all along, under 
 the unanimous declaration of all par- 
 ties, and of the legislature of Massa- 
 chusetts ; that I thought there must be 
 some limit to the extent of our terri- 
 tories, and that I wished tliis country 
 (should exhibit to the world the ex- 
 ample of a powerful republic, without 
 greediness and hunger of empire. And 
 I added, that while I held, with as much 
 faithfulness as any citizen of the coun- 
 try, to all the original arrangements 
 and compromises of the Constitution 
 under which we live, I never could, and 
 I never should, bring myself to be in 
 favor of the admission of any States 
 mto tlie Union as slave-holding States; 
 and I might have added, any States at 
 all, to be formed out of territories not 
 now belonging to us. 
 
 Now, as I have said, in all this I 
 acted under the resolutions of tiie State 
 of Massachusetts, certainly concurrent 
 with my own judgment, so often re- 
 peated, and realiirmed by the unani- 
 
 mous consent of all men of all parties, 
 that I could not well go through the 
 series, pointing out, not only the im- 
 policy, but the unconstitutionality, of 
 such annexation. If a State proposes 
 to come into the Union, and to come in 
 as a slave State, then there is an aug- 
 mentation of the inequality in the rep- 
 resentation of the i^eople ; an inequality 
 already existing, with which I do not 
 quarrel, and which I never will attempt 
 to alter, but shall preserve as long as I 
 have a vote to give, or any voice in this 
 government, because it is a part of the 
 original compact. Let it stand. But 
 then there is another consideration of 
 vastly more general importance even 
 than that; more general, because it 
 affects all the States, free and slave- 
 holding ; and it is, that, if States 
 formed out of territories thus thinly 
 populated come into the Union, they 
 necessarily and inevitably break up 
 the relation existing between the two 
 branches of the government, and de- 
 stroy its balance. They break up the 
 intended relation between the Senate 
 and the House of llepresentatives. If 
 you bring in new States, any State that 
 comes in must have two Senators. She 
 may come in with fifty or sixty thou- 
 sand people, or more. You may have, 
 from a particular State, more Senators 
 than you have llepresentatives. Can 
 any thing occur to disfigure and derange 
 the form of government * under which 
 we live more signally than that? Here 
 would be a Senate bearing no propor- 
 tion to the people, out of all relation to 
 them, by the addition of new States; 
 from some of them only one Repre- 
 sentative, perhaps, and two Senators, 
 whereas the larger States may have ten, 
 fifteen, or even thirty Representatives, 
 and but two Senators. The Senate, 
 augmented by these new Senators com- 
 ing from States where there are few \>eo- 
 ple, becomes an odious oligarchy. It 
 holds power without any adequate con- 
 stituency. Sir, it is but " borough- 
 mongering " upon a large scale. Now, 
 I do not dejiend upon theory; I ask the 
 Senate and the country to look at facts, 
 to see wliere we were when we made our 
 
 36 
 
o62 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 departure three years ago, and where we 
 now are ; and I leave it to tlie imagina- 
 tion to conjecture where we shall be. 
 
 We admitted Texas, — one State for 
 the present; but. Sir, if you refer to the 
 resolutions providing for the annexation 
 of Texas, you find a provision that it 
 shall be in the power of Congress here- 
 after to make four new States out of 
 Texan territory. Present and prospec- 
 tively, five new States, with ten Senators, 
 may corae into the Union out of Texas. 
 Three years ago we did this; we now 
 propose to make two States. Undoubt- 
 edly, if we take, as the President recom- 
 mends, Xew Mexico and California, 
 there must then be four new Senators. 
 We shall then have provided, in these 
 territories out of the United States along 
 our southern borders, for the creation 
 of States enough to send fourteen Sen- 
 ators into this chamber. Now, what 
 will be the relation between these Sena- 
 tors and the people they represent, or tlie 
 States from which they come? I do not 
 understand that there is any very accu- 
 rate census of Texas. It is generally 
 supposed to contain one hundred and 
 fifty thousand persons. I doubt whether 
 it contains above one hundred thousand. 
 
 Mu. Mangum. It contains one hundred 
 and forty-nine tliousand. 
 
 My honorable friend on my left says, 
 a hundred and forty-nine thousand. I 
 put it down, then, one hundred and fifty 
 thousand. Well, Sir, Texas is not des- 
 tined, probably, to be a country of dense 
 population. We will suppose it to have 
 at the present time a population of near 
 one hundred and fifty thousand. New 
 Mexico may have sixty or seventy thou- 
 sand inhabitants; say seventy thousand. 
 In California, tliere are not supjx>sed to 
 be above twenty-five thousand men; but 
 undoubtedly, if this territory should be- 
 come ours, persons from Oregon, and 
 from our Western States, will find their 
 way to San Francisco, where there is 
 some good land, and we may suppose 
 they will sliortly amount to sixty or sev- 
 enty thousand. We will put them down 
 at seventy thousand. Then the whole 
 territoiy in this estimate, which is as 
 
 high as any man puts it, will contain 
 two hundred and ninety thousand per 
 sons, and they will send us, whenever 
 we ask for them, fourteen Senators; a 
 population less than that of the State 
 of Vermont, and not the eighth part of 
 that of Xew York. Fourteen Senators, 
 and not as many people as Vermont! 
 and no more people than Xew Hamp- 
 shire! and not so many people as tho 
 good State of Xew Jersey ! 
 
 But then, Sir, Texas claimn to the 
 line of the Rio Grande, and if it be lier 
 true line, whj- then of course she absorbs 
 a considerable part, nay, the greater part, 
 of the population of what is now called 
 Xew ^lexico. I do not argue the nues- 
 tion of the true southern or western line 
 of Texas; I only say, that it is apparent 
 to everybody who will look at the map, 
 and learn any thing of the matter, that 
 Xew Mexico cannot be divided by this 
 river, the Rio Grande, which is a shal- 
 low, fordable, insignificant stream, creep- 
 ing along through a narrow valley, at 
 the base of enormous mountains. Xew 
 ^lexico must remain together; it must 
 be a State, with its seventy thousand 
 peojile, and so it wiU be; and so will 
 California. 
 
 But then, Sir, suppose Texas to re- 
 main a unit, and but one State for the 
 jiresent; still we shall liave three States, 
 Texas, Xew Mexico, and California. 
 We shall have six Senators, then, for 
 less than three hundred thousand peo- 
 ple. We shall have as many Senators 
 for three hundred thousand people in 
 that region as we have for New York, 
 Pennsylvania, and Ohio, with four or 
 five millions of people; and that is what 
 we call an equal representation ! Is not 
 this enormous? Have gentlemen con- 
 sidered this? Have they looked at it? 
 Are they willing to look it in the face, 
 and then say they embrace it? I trust. 
 Sir, the people will look at it and con- 
 sider it. And now let me add, that this 
 disprojX)rtion can never be diminished; 
 it must remain for ever. How are you 
 going to iliminish it? Why, here is 
 Texas, with a hundred and forty-nine 
 thousand people, with one State. Sup- 
 pose that population should flow into 
 
OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 S3 
 
 Tex IS, where will it go? Not to any 
 dense point, but to be spread over all 
 that' region, in places remote from the 
 Gulf, in places remote from what is now 
 the capital of Texas; and therefore, as 
 six)n as there are in other portions of 
 Texas people enough williin our com- 
 mon construction of the Constitution and 
 our practice in respect to the admission 
 of States, my honorable friend from 
 Texas 1 will have a new State, and I 
 have no doubt he has chalked it out 
 aheady. 
 
 As to Xew ^lexico, its population is 
 not likely to increase. It is a settled 
 country ; the people living along in the 
 bottom of the valley on the sides of a 
 little stream, a garter of land only on 
 one side and the other, filled by coarse 
 landholders and miserable peona. It can 
 sustain, not only under this cultivation, 
 but under any cultivation that our Amer- 
 ican race would ever submit to, no more 
 people than are there now. There will, 
 then, be two Senators for sixty thousand 
 inhabitants in Xew Mexico to the end 
 of our lives and to the end of the lives 
 of our children. 
 
 And how is it with California? We 
 propo.se to take California, from the forty- 
 second degree of north latitude down to 
 the thirty-second. We propose to take 
 ten degrees along the coast of the Pacific. 
 Scattered along the coast for that great 
 distance are settlements and villages and 
 ports; and in the rear all is wilderness 
 and barrenness, and Indian country. 
 But if, just about San Francisco, and 
 perhaps Monterey, emigrants enough 
 should settle to make up one State, then 
 the people five hundred miles off would 
 have another State. And so this dis- 
 proportion of the Senate to the people 
 will go on, and must go on, and we can- 
 not prevent it. 
 
 I say. Sir, that, according to my con- 
 scientious conviction, we are now fixing 
 on the Constitution of the United States, 
 and its frame of government, a mon- 
 strosity, a disfiguration, an enormity! 
 Sir, I hardly dare trust myself. I don't 
 know but I may be under some delusion. 
 It may be the weakness of my eyes that 
 1 Mr. Rusk. 
 
 forms this monstrous apparition. But, 
 if I Muiy trust my.self , if I can persuade 
 myself that I am in my right mind, then 
 it does appear to me that we in this Sen- 
 ate have been and are acting, and are 
 likely to be acting hereafter, and imme- 
 diately, a part which will form the most 
 remarkable epoch in the history of our 
 country. I hold it to be enormous, fla- 
 grant, an outrage upon all the principles 
 of popular republican government, and 
 on the elementary provisions of the Con- 
 stitution under which we live, and which 
 we have sworn to support. 
 
 But then. Sir, what relieves the case 
 from this enormity? What is our reli- 
 ance ? Why, it is that we stipulate that 
 these new States shall only be brought 
 in at a suitable time. And pray, w-hat 
 is to constitute the suitableness of time? 
 Who is to judge of it? I tell you. Sir, 
 that suitable time will come when the 
 preponderance of party power hei-e makes 
 it necessarv to bring in new States. Be 
 assured it will be a suitable time when 
 votes are w^anted in this Senate. We 
 have had some little experience of that. 
 Texas came in at a "suitable time," a 
 verij suitable time! Texas was finally 
 admitted in December, 184.5. My friend 
 near me here, for whom I have a great 
 regard, and whose acquaiwtance I have 
 cultivated with pleasure,^ took his seat 
 in March, 1846, with his colleague. In 
 July, 18-46, these two Texan votes turned 
 the balance in the Senate, and over- 
 threw the tariff of 1842, in my judg- 
 ment the best system of revenue ever 
 established in this country. Gentlemen 
 on the opposite side think otherwise. 
 They think it fortunate. They think 
 that was a suitable time, and they mean 
 to take care that other times shall be 
 equally suitable. I understand it per- 
 fectly well. That is the difference of 
 opinion between me and these honora- 
 ble gentlemen. To their policy, their 
 objects, and their purposes the time was 
 suitable, and the aid was efficient and 
 decisive. 
 
 Sir, in 1850 perhaps a similar ques- 
 tion may be agitated here. It is not 
 likely to be before that time, but agi- 
 1 Mr. Rusk. 
 
 i 
 
664 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 tated it will be then, unless a change 
 in the adraiuistratiou of the government 
 sljall take place. According to my ap- 
 prehension, looking at general resultN as 
 flowing from our established system of 
 commerce and revenue, in two years 
 from this time we sliaU probably be en- 
 gaged in a new revision of our system : 
 in the work of establishing, if we can, a 
 tariff of specific duties; of protecting, if 
 we can, om* domestic industry and the 
 manufactures of the country; in the 
 work of preventing, if we can, the over- 
 whelming flood of foreign importations. 
 Suppose that to be part of the future : that 
 would be exactly the "suitable time," 
 if necessary, for two Senators from New 
 Mexico to make their appearance here! 
 
 But, again, we hear another halcyon, 
 Boothing tone, which quiets none of my 
 alarms, assuages none of my apprehen- 
 sions, commends me to my nightly rest 
 with no more resignation. And that is, 
 tlie plea that we may trust the popular 
 branch of the legislature, we may look 
 to the House of Representatives, to the 
 Northern and Middle States and even 
 the sound men of the South, and trust 
 them to take care that States be not ad- 
 mitted sooner than they should be, or 
 for party purposes. I am comjieUed, 
 by experience, to distrust all such reli- 
 ances. If we cannot rely on ourselves, 
 when we have the clear constitutional 
 authority competent to carry us through, 
 and the motives intensely powerful, I 
 beg to know how we can rely on others. 
 Have we more reliance on the patriot- 
 ism, the firmness, of others, than on 
 our own? 
 
 Besides, experience shows us that 
 things of this sort may be sprung upon 
 Congi-ess and the people. It was so in 
 the case of Texas. It was so in the 
 Twenty-eighth Congress. The mem- 
 bers of that Congress were not chosen 
 to decide the question of annexation or 
 no annexation. Tliey came in on other 
 grounds, political and party, and were 
 supported for reasons not connected 
 with that question. What then? The 
 administration sprung upon them the 
 question of annexation. It obtained 
 K srinp judgment upon it, and carried 
 
 the measure of annexation. That is in- 
 dubitable, as I could show by many in- 
 stances, of which I .shall state only one. 
 
 Four gentlemen from the State of Con- 
 necticut were elfcted b«f yg the ques- 
 tion arose, belonging t*-^ . ,/Jominant 
 party. They had not been here Lvg 
 before thej' were committed to annera 
 tion; and when it was known in Con- 
 necticut that annexation was in con'cm 
 plation, remonstrances, private, j-ublic, 
 and legislative, were uttered, in tonea 
 that any one could hear who coul 1 hear 
 thunder. Did they move them? Not 
 at all. Ever)' one of them voted 1 or an- 
 nexation! The election came on, and 
 they were turned out, to a man. But 
 what did those care who had had the 
 benefit of their votes? Such agencies, 
 if it be not more proper to call them 
 such instrumentalities, retain respect no 
 longer than they continue to be useful. 
 
 Sir, we take Xew Mexico and Cali- 
 fornia ; who is weak enough to suppose 
 that there is an end? Don't we hear it 
 avowed eveiy day, that it would be 
 proper also to take Sonora, Tamaulipas, 
 and other provinces of Northern Mex- 
 ico? Who thinks that the hunger for 
 dominion will stop here of itself? It is 
 said, to be sure, that our present acqui- 
 sitions will prove so lean and unsatis- 
 factory, that we shall seek no further. 
 In my judgment, we may as well say of 
 a rapacious animal, that, if he has made 
 one unproductive hunt, he will not try 
 for a better foray. 
 
 But further. There are some tilings 
 one can argue against with temper, and 
 submit to, if overruled, without morti- 
 fication. There are other things that 
 seem to affect one's consciousness of 
 being a sensible man, and to imply a 
 disposition to impose upon his connnon 
 sense. And of this class of topics, or 
 pretences, I have never heard of any 
 thing, and I cannot conceive of any 
 thing, more ridiculous in itself, more 
 absurd, and more affrontive to all sobe^ 
 judgnuMit, than the cry that we are gci- 
 ting indemnity by the acquisition of 
 New Mexico and California. I hold 
 they are not worth a dollar; and we 
 pay for them vast sums of money ! AVe 
 
OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 5G5 
 
 havo expended, as everybody knows, 
 large treasurea in the prosecution of the 
 war; and now what is to constitute this 
 indemnity? What do gentlemen mean 
 by it y I.'^*^ .- see ;, little how this 
 stands. ,» Jt a country; we get, in 
 the first instance, a cession, or an ac- 
 knowledgment of boundary, (I care not 
 which way you state it,) of the coun- 
 try between the Nueces and the llio 
 Grande. What this countiy is appears 
 from a publication made by a gentle- 
 man in the other house. ^ He speaks of 
 the country in the following manner : — 
 
 " The country from tlie Nueces to the 
 valley of the Kio Grande is poor, sterile, 
 sandy, and barren, with not a single tree of 
 any size or value on our whole route. The 
 only tree which we saw was the musquit- 
 tree, and very few of these. The musquit 
 is a small tree, resembling an old and de- 
 cayed peach-tree. The whole country may 
 be truly called a perfect waste, iniinliabited 
 and uninhabitable. There is not a drop of 
 running water between the two rivers, except 
 in the two small streams of San Salvador 
 and Santa Gertrudis, and these only con- 
 tain water in the rainy season. Neither of 
 them had running water when we passed 
 them. The chaparral commences within 
 forty or fifty miles of the Kio Grande. 
 This is poor, rocky, and sandy ; covered 
 with prickly -pear, thistles, and almost every 
 sticking thing, constituting a thick and 
 perfectly impenetrable undergrowth. For 
 any useful or agricultural purpose, the 
 country is not worth a sous. 
 
 " So far as we were able to form any 
 opinion of this desert upon the other routes 
 which had been travelled, its character, 
 everywhere between the two rivers, is 
 pretty much the same. We learned that 
 the route pursued by General Taylor, south 
 of ours, was through a country similar to 
 that through which we passed; as also was 
 that travelled by General Wool from San 
 Antonio to Presidio on the Kio Grande. 
 From what we both saw and heard, the 
 nhole command came to the conclusion 
 whicli I have already expressed, that it was 
 worth notldnij. I have no iiesitation in say- 
 ing, that I would not hazard the life of one 
 valuable and useful man for every foot of 
 land between San Patricio and the valley of 
 the Kio Grande. The country is not now, 
 and can never be, of the slightest value." 
 
 1 Major Gaines. 
 
 Major Gaines has been theie lately. 
 He is a competent observer. He is con- 
 tradicted by nobody. And so far as 
 that country is concerned, I take it for 
 granted tliat it is not worth a dollar. 
 
 Now of New Mexico, what of that? 
 Forty-nine fiftieths, at least, of the 
 whole of New Mexico, are a barren 
 waste, a desert plain of mountain, with 
 no wood, no timber. Little fagots for 
 lighting a fire are carried thirty or forty 
 miles on mules. There is no fall of 
 rain there, as in temperate climates. It 
 is Asiatic in scenery altogether: enor- 
 mously high mountains, running up 
 some of them ten thousand feet, with 
 narrow valleys at their bases, through 
 which streams sometimes trickle alonij. 
 A strip, a garter, winds along, through 
 which runs the Rio Grande, from far 
 away up in the Rocky ^lountains to 
 latitude 33°, a distance of three or 
 four hundred miles. There these sixty 
 thousand persons reside. In the moun- 
 tains on the right and left are streams 
 which, obeying the natural tendency as 
 tributaries, should flow into the Rio 
 Grande, and which, in certain seasons, 
 when rains are abundant, do, some of 
 them, actually reach the Rio Grande; 
 while the greater part always, and all 
 for the greater part of the year, never 
 reach an outlet to the sea, but are ab- 
 sorbed in the sands and desert plains of 
 the country. There is no cultivation 
 there. There is cultivation where there 
 is artificial watering or irrigation, and 
 nowhere else. Men can live only in 
 the narrow valley, and in the gorges of 
 the mountains which rise round it, and 
 not along the course of the streams which 
 lose themselves in the sands. 
 
 Now there is no public domain in 
 New Mexico, not a foot of land, to the 
 soil of which we shall obtain title. Not 
 an acre becomes ours when the country 
 becomes ours. More than that, the 
 country is as full of people, such as they 
 are, as it is likely to be. There i? not 
 the least thing in it to invite settlement 
 from the fertile valley of the Mississippi. 
 And I undertake to say, there would 
 not be two hundred families ol persons 
 who would emigrate from the United 
 
566 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN VTAU. 
 
 States to New Mexico, for a^iciiltural 
 pui-poses, in fifty years. They could 
 not live there. Suppose they were to 
 cultivate the lands; they could only 
 make them productive in a slight degree 
 by irrigation or artificial watering. The 
 people there produce little, and live on 
 little. That is not the characteristic, I 
 take it, of the people of the Eastern or 
 of the Middle States, or of the Valley of 
 the Mississippi. They produce a good 
 deal, and they consume a good deal. 
 
 Again, Sir, New Mexico is not like 
 Texas. I have hoped, and I still hope, 
 that Texas will be filled up from among 
 ourselves, not with Spaniards, not with 
 peons; that its inhabitants will not be 
 Mexican landlords, with troops of slaves, 
 predial or otherwise. 
 
 Mr. Rusk here rose, and said that he dis- 
 liked to interrupt the Senator, and tliere- 
 fore lie iuid said nothing while he was de- 
 scribing the country between the Nueces 
 and tlie Rio Grande ; but he wished now to 
 gay, tiiat, when tiiat country comes to be 
 known, it will he found to be as valuable 
 as any part of Texas. The valley of the 
 Rio Grande is valuable from its source to 
 its mouth. But he did not look upon that 
 as indemnity ; he claimed that as the ri<jht of 
 Texas. So far as the Mexican population 
 is concerned, there is a good deal of it in 
 Texas ; and it comprises many respectable 
 persons, wealthy, intelligent, and distin- 
 guished. A good many are now moving in 
 from New Mexico, and settling in Texas. 
 
 I take what I say from Major Gaines. 
 But I am glad to hear that any part of 
 New Mexico is fit for the foot of civil- 
 ized man. And I am glad, moreover, 
 that thei'e are some persons in New 
 Mexico who are not so blindly attached 
 to their miserable condition as not to 
 make an effort to come out of their 
 country, and get into a better. 
 
 Sir, I would, if I had time, call the 
 attention of the Senate to an instructive 
 speech made in the other house by Mr. 
 Smith of Connecticut. He seems to 
 have examined all the authorities, to 
 have conversed with all the travellers, 
 to have corresponded with all our agents. 
 His speech contains communications 
 from all of them ; and I commend it to 
 
 every man in the United States who 
 wishes to know what ive are about to ac- 
 quire by the annexation of New Mexico 
 
 New Mexico is secluded, isolated, a 
 place by itself, in the midst and at the 
 foot of vast mountains, five hundred 
 miles from the settled part of Texas, 
 and as far from anywhere else! It does 
 not belong anywhere ! It has no helonfj- 
 inga about it! At this moment it is 
 absolutely more retired and shut out 
 from communication with the civilized 
 world than Hawaii or any of the other 
 islands of the Pacific sea. lu seclusion 
 and remoteness, New Mexico may press 
 hard on the character and condition of 
 Typee. And its people are infinitt^ly 
 less elevated, in morals and condition, 
 than the people of the Sandwich Islands. 
 We had much better have Senators 
 from Oahu. They are far less intelli- 
 gent than the better class of our Indian 
 neighbors. Commend me to the Chero- 
 kees, to the Choctaws; if you please, 
 speak of the Pawnees, of the Snakes, 
 the Flatfeet, of any thing but the Dif/- 
 ging Indians, and I will be satisfied 
 not to take the people of New ilexico. 
 Have tliey any notion of our institu- 
 tions, or of any free institutions? Have 
 they any notion of popular government? 
 Not the slightest! Not the slighte.st ou 
 earth! When the question is asked, 
 What will be their constitution? it is 
 farcical to talk of such people making 
 a constitution for themselves. They do 
 not know the meaning of the term, they 
 do not know its import. They know 
 nothing at all about it; and I can tell 
 you, Sir, that when they are made a 
 Territory, and are to be made a State, 
 such a constitution as the execut' re 
 power of this government may think lit 
 to send them will be sent, and will be 
 adopted. Th6 constitution of our fellow 
 citizens of New Mexico will be framed 
 in the city of Washington. 
 
 Now what says in regard to all Mexico 
 Colonel Hardin, that most lamented and 
 distinguished officer, honorably known 
 as a nu.'mber of the other hou.>^e, and 
 who has fallen gallantly fighting in the 
 service of his country? Here is his 
 description : — 
 
OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 567 
 
 " The whole country is miserably wa- 
 tered. Large districts have no water at all. 
 The streams are small, and at great dis- 
 tances apart. One day wc marched on the 
 road from Monclova to Parras thirty-five 
 miles without water, a pretty severe day's 
 marching for infantry. 
 
 " Grass is very scarce, and indeed there 
 is none at all in many regions for miles 
 square. Its place is supplied with prickly- 
 pear and thorny bushes. There is not one 
 acre in two hundred, more probably not 
 one in five hundred, of all the land we have 
 Been in Mexico, which can ever be culti- 
 vated ; the greater portion of it is the most 
 desolate region I could ever have imagined. 
 The pure granite hills if New England are 
 a paradise to it, for they are without the 
 thorny briers and venomous reptiles which 
 infest the barbed barrenness of Mexico. 
 The good land and cultivated spots in 
 Mexico are but dots on the map. Were it 
 not that it takes so very little to support a 
 Mexican, and that the land which is culti- 
 vated yields its produce with little labor, it 
 would be surprising how its sparse popula- 
 tion is sustained. All the towns we have 
 visited, with perhaps the exception of Par- 
 ras, are depopulating, as is also the whole 
 country. 
 
 " The people are on a par with their 
 land. One in two hundred or five hundred 
 is rich, and lives like a nabob ; the rest are 
 peons, or servants sold for debt, who work 
 for their masters, and are as subservient as 
 the slaves of the South, and look like In- 
 dians, and, indeed, are not more capable of 
 self-government. One man, Jacobus San- 
 chez, owns three fourths of all the land our 
 column has passed over in Mexico. We 
 are told we have seen the best part of 
 Northern Mexico ; if so, the whole of it is 
 not worth much. 
 
 " I came to Mexico in favor of getting 
 or taking enough of it to pay the expenses 
 of the war. I now doubt whether all 
 Northern Mexico is worth the expenses of 
 our column of three thousand men. Tiie 
 expenses of the war must be enormous ; we 
 have paid enormous prices for every thing, 
 much beyond the usual prices of the coun- 
 try." 
 
 There it is. That's all North Mexico ; 
 and Xew Mexico is not the better part 
 of it. 
 
 Sir, there is a recent traveller, not 
 unfriendly to the United States, if we 
 may judge from his work, for lie speaks 
 
 well of us everywhere; an Englishman, 
 named Ruxton. He gives an account 
 of the morals and the manners of the 
 population of New Mexico. And, Mr. 
 President and Senators, I shall take 
 leave to introduce you to these soon to 
 be your respected fellow-citizens of New 
 Mexico: — 
 
 " It is remarkable that, although existing 
 from the earliest times of the colonization 
 of New Mexico, a period of two centuries, 
 in a state of continual hostility with the 
 numerous savage tribes of Indians who 
 surround their territory, and in constant 
 insecurity of life and property from their 
 attacks, being also far removed from the 
 enervating influences of large cities, and, 
 in their isolated situation, entirely depend- 
 ent upon their own resources, the inhabi- 
 tants are totally destitute of those qualities 
 which, for the above reasons, we might 
 naturally have expected to distinguish 
 them, and are as deficient in energy of 
 character and physical courage as they are 
 in all the moral and intellectual qualities. 
 In their social state but one degree reinoved 
 from the veriest savages, they might take a 
 lesson even from these in moralit}' and the 
 conventional decencies of life. Imposing 
 no restraint on their passions, a shameless 
 and universal concubinage exists, and a 
 total disregard of morality, to which it 
 would be impossible to find a parallel in 
 any country calling itself civilized. A want 
 of honorable principle, and consummate 
 duplicity and treachery, characterize all 
 their dealings. Liars by nature, they are 
 treacherous and faithless to their friends, 
 cowardly and cringing to their enemies ; 
 cruel, as all cowards are, they unite savage 
 ferocity with their want of animal courage; 
 as an example of which, their recent mas- 
 sacre of Governor Bent, and other Ameri- 
 cans, may be given, one of a hundred 
 instances." 
 
 These, Sir, are soon to be our beloved 
 countrymen ! 
 
 ;Mr. President, for a good many years 
 I have struggled in opposition to evei'v 
 thing which I thought tended to strengtli- 
 en the arm of executive power. I think 
 it is growing more and more formidable 
 every day. And I think that by yielili ng 
 to it in this, as in otlier instances, we 
 give it a strength which it will be ditfi- 
 cult hereafter to resist. I think that it 
 
568 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE MEXICAN WAR. 
 
 is nothing less than the fear of executive 
 power which induces us to acquiesce in 
 the acquisition of territory; fear, fear, 
 and nothing else. 
 
 In the little part which I have acted 
 in public life, it has been my purpose to 
 maintain the people of the United States, 
 what the Constitution designed to make 
 them, one people, one in interest, one in 
 character, and one in political feeling. 
 If we depart from that, we break it all 
 up. AVhat sympathy can there be be- 
 tween the people of Mexico and Califor- 
 nia and the inhabitants of the Valley of 
 the Mississippi and the Eastern States 
 in the choice of a President? Do they 
 know the same man ? Do they concur 
 in any general constitutional principles? 
 Not at all. 
 
 Arbitrary governments may have ter- 
 ritories and distant possessions, because 
 arbitrary governments may rule them 
 by different laws and different .systems. 
 Russia may rule in the Ukraine and the 
 provinces of the Caucasus and Kamt- 
 schatka by different codes, ordinances, 
 or ukases. We can do no such thing. 
 They must be of us, pari of us, or else 
 strangers. 
 
 I think I see that in progress which 
 will di.sfigure and deform the Constitu- 
 tion. While these territories remain 
 territories, they will be a trouble and an 
 annoyance; they will draw after them 
 vast expenses; they will probably re- 
 quire as many troops as we have main- 
 tained during the last twenty years to 
 defend them against the Indian tribes. 
 
 We must maintain an army at that im- 
 mense distance. When they shall be- 
 come States, they will be still more 
 likely to give us trouble. 
 
 I think I see a course adopted which 
 is likely to turn the Constitution of the 
 land into a deformed monster, into a 
 curse rather than a ble.ssing; in fact, 
 a frame of an unequal government, not 
 founded on popular representation, not 
 founded on equality, but on the grossest 
 inequality; and I think that this process 
 will go on, or that there is danger tliat 
 it will go on, until this Union shall fall 
 to pieces. I resist it, to-day and always ! 
 Whoever falters or whoever flies, I con- 
 tinue the contest! 
 
 I know. Sir, that all the portents are 
 discouraging. Would to God I could 
 auspicate good iuflufncesl Would to 
 God that those wlio tliink with me. and 
 myself, could hope for stronger support! 
 Would that we could stand where we 
 desire to stand! I see the signs are 
 sinister. But with few, or alone, my 
 position is fixed. If there were time, 
 I would gladly awaken the country. I 
 believe the country might be awakened, 
 although it may be too late. For my- 
 self, supported or unsupported, by the 
 blessing of God, I .shall do my duty. I 
 see well enough all the adverse indica- 
 tions. But I am sustained by a deep 
 and a conscientious sense of duty; and 
 while supported by that feeling, and 
 while such great interests are at stake, 
 I defy auguries, and ask no omen Imt 
 my country's cause I 
 
EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM THE 
 
 TERRITORIES. 
 
 REMARKS MADE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 12th Vt 
 
 AUGUST, 184S. 
 
 [Ik the course of the first session of the 
 Tliirtielh Congress, a bill passed the House 
 of Keprescntatives to organize a govem- 
 nient for tlie Territory of Oregon. This 
 bill received several amendments on its 
 passage through the Senate, and among 
 them one moved by Mr. Douglass of Illi- 
 nois, on the lOlh of August, by which the 
 eighth section of the law of the (ith of 
 :March, 1820, for the admission of Missouri, 
 was revived and adopted, as a part of the 
 bill, and declared to be " in full force, and 
 binding, for the future organization of the 
 territories of the United States, in the same 
 sense and with the same understanding with 
 which it was originally adopted." 
 
 This, with some of the other amend- 
 ments of the Senate, was disagreed to by 
 the House. On the return of the bill to the 
 Senate, a discussion arose, and continued 
 for several days, on the question of agree- 
 ment or disagreement with the amendments 
 of the House to the Senate's amendments. 
 
 The principal subject of this discussion 
 was whether the Senate would recede from 
 the above-mentioned amendment moved by 
 Jlr. Douglass, which was finally decided in 
 the affirmative. In these discussions, a con- 
 siderable portion of which was of a conver- 
 sational character, Mr. Webster took a 
 leading part ; but of most of what was said 
 by him, as by other Senators, no report has 
 been preserved. The session of the Senate 
 at which the last and most animated dis- 
 cussion of this subject took place, nomi- 
 nally on Saturday of the 12th of August, was 
 prolonged till ten o'clock, a.m., of Sunday, 
 the loth. In the course of the debate on 
 this day Mr. Webster spoke as follows.] 
 
 I AM very little inclined to prolong 
 this debate, and I hope I am utterly dis- 
 inclined to bring into it any new warmth 
 or excitemeut. 1 wish to say a few words, 
 
 how'ever, first, upon the question as it 19 
 presented to us, as a parliamentary ques- 
 tion; and secondly, upon the general 
 political questions involved in the de- 
 bate. 
 
 As a question of parliamentary pro- 
 ceeding, I understand the case to be this. 
 The House of Repre.'^entatives sent us a 
 bill for the establishment of a territorial 
 government in Oregon; and no motion 
 has been made in the Senate to strike 
 out any part of that bill. The bill pur- 
 porting to respect Oregon, simply and 
 alone, has not been the subject of any 
 objection in this branch of the legisla- 
 ture. The Senate has proposed no im- 
 portant amendment to this bill, affect- 
 ing Oregon itself; and the honorable 
 member from ^Missouri ^ was right, en- 
 tirely right, when he said that the 
 amendment now under consideration 
 had no relation to Oregon. 1'hat is per- 
 fectly true; and therefore the amend- 
 ment which the Senate has adopted, 
 and the House has disagreed to. has no 
 connection with the immediate subject 
 before it. The truth is, that it is an 
 amendment by which the Senate wishes 
 to have now a public, legal declaration, 
 not respecting Oregon, but respecting 
 the newly acquired territories of Cali- 
 fornia and New Mexico. It wishes 
 now to make a line of slavery, which 
 shall include those new territoiies. 
 
 1 Mi Bentoa. 
 
 I 
 
570 
 
 EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 The amendment says that the line of 
 the "Missouri Compromise" shall be 
 the line to the Pacific, and then goes 
 on to say, in tlie language of the bill as 
 it now stands, that the Ordinance of 
 1787 sliall be applicable to Oregon ; and 
 therefore I say that the amendment 
 projxised is foreign to the immediate 
 object of the bill. It does nothing to 
 modify, restrain, or affect, in any way, 
 the government which we propose to 
 establish over Oregon, or the condition 
 or character of that government, or of 
 the people under it. In a parliamen- 
 taiy view, this is the state of the case. 
 
 Now, Sir, this amendment has been 
 attaclied to this bill by a strong major- 
 ity of the Senate. That majority had 
 the right, as it had the power, to pass 
 it. The House disagreed to that amend- 
 ment. If the majority of the Senate, 
 who attached it to the bill, are of opin- 
 ion that a conference with the House 
 will lead to some adjustment of the 
 question, by which this amendment, 
 or something equivalent to it, may be 
 adopted by the House, it is very proper 
 for them to urge a conference. It is 
 A'ery fair, quite parliamentary, and 
 there is not a word to be said against 
 it. But my position is that of one 
 who voted against the amendment, who 
 thinks that it ought not to be attached 
 to this bill; and therefore I naturally 
 vote for the motion to get rid of it, that 
 is, "to recede." 
 
 So much for the parliamentary ques- 
 tion. Kow there are two or three polit- 
 ical questions arising in this case, which 
 I wish to state dispassionately; not to 
 aigue, but to state. The honorable 
 member from Georgia,' for whom I 
 have great respect, and with whom it 
 v\ my delight to cultivate personal 
 friendship, has stated, with great pro- 
 priety, the importance of this question. 
 He has said, that it is a question in- 
 teresting to the South and to the Xorth, 
 and one which may very well also attract 
 the attention of mankind. He has not 
 stated any part of this too strongly. It 
 is such a question. Without doubt, it 
 is a ques-tion which may well attract the 
 1 Mr. Berrien. 
 
 attention of mankind. On the subjects 
 involved in this debate, the whole world 
 is not now asleep. It is wide awake; 
 and I agree with the honorable mem- 
 ber, that, if what is now proposed to be 
 done by us who resist this amendment 
 is, as he supposes, unjust and injurious 
 to any portion of this community, or 
 against its constitutional rights, that 
 injustice should be presented to tiie 
 civilized world, and we, who concur in 
 the proceeding, ought to submit our- 
 .selves to its rebuke. I am glad tliat the 
 honorable gentleman proposes to refer 
 this question to the great tribunal of 
 Modern Civilization, as well as the 
 great tribunal of the American People. 
 It is proper. It is a question of magni- 
 tude enough, of interest enougli, to all 
 the civilized nations of the earth, to 
 call from those who support the one 
 side or the other a statement of the 
 grounds upon wliich they act. 
 
 Now I projwse to state as briefly as 
 I can the grounds upon which I pro- 
 ceed, historical and constitutional; and 
 will endeavor to use as few words as 
 possible, .so that I may relieve the Sen- 
 ate from hearing me at the earliest 
 possible moment. In tiie first place, 
 to view the matter historically. This 
 Constitution, founded in 1787, and the 
 government under it, organized in 17S9, 
 do recognize the existonce of slavery in 
 certain States then belonging to the 
 Union, and a particular description of 
 slavery. I hope that what I am alwut to 
 say may be received without any sup- 
 position that I intend the slightest dis- 
 respect. But this particular description 
 of slavery does not, I believe, now exist 
 in Europe, nor in any other civilized 
 portion of the habitable globe. It is 
 not a predial slavery. It is not analo- 
 gous to the case of the predial slaves, 
 or slaves glehce adscripti of Russia, or 
 Hungary, or other states. It is a pecu- 
 liar system of personal slavery, by which 
 the person who is called a slave is trans- 
 ferable as a chattel, from hand to hand. 
 I speak of this as a fact ; and that is tlie 
 fact. And I will say further, perhaps 
 other gentlemen may remember the in- 
 stances, that altliougli slavery, as a sys- 
 
EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM TIIE TERRITORIES. 
 
 571 
 
 tpm of servitude attac-liod to the earth, 
 exists in various countries of Europe, 
 J am not at the present moment aware 
 of any place on the globe in which this 
 profterty of man in a human being as a 
 slave, transferable as a chattel, exists, 
 except America. Now, that it existed, 
 in the form in which it still exists, in 
 certain States, at the formation of this 
 Constitution, and that the framers of 
 that instrument, and those who adopted 
 it, agreed that, as far as it existed, it 
 should not be disturbed or interfered 
 with by the new general government, 
 there is no doubt. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States 
 recognizes it as an existing fact, an ex- 
 isting relation between the inhabitants 
 of the Southern States. I do not call 
 it an "institution," because that term 
 is not applicable to it; for that seems 
 to imply a voluntary establishment. 
 "When I first came here, it was a matter 
 of frequent reproach to England, the 
 mother country, that slavery had been 
 entailed upon the colonies by her, 
 against their consent, and that which 
 is now considered a cherished " institu- 
 tion " was then regarded as, I will not 
 say an evil, but an entailment on the Col- 
 onies by the policy of the mother country 
 asrainst tlieir wishes. At anv rate, it 
 st.ands upon the Constitution. The Con- 
 stitution was adopted in 1788, and went 
 into operation in 1789. When it was 
 adopted, the state of the country was 
 this: slavery existed in the Southern 
 States; there was a very large extent 
 of unoccupied territory, the whole 
 "Northwestern Territory, which, it was 
 nnderstood, was destined to be formed 
 into States; and it was then determined 
 that no slavery should exist in this terri- 
 tory. I gather now, as a matter of in- 
 ference from the history of the time 
 and the history of the debates, that the 
 prevailing motives with the North for 
 agreeing to this recognition of the ex- 
 istence of slavery in the Southern 
 States, and giving a representation to 
 those States founded in part upon their 
 slaves, rested on the supposition that 
 no acquisition of territory would be 
 made to form new States on the south- 
 
 ern frontier of this country, either by 
 cession or conquest. No one looked to 
 any acquisition of new territory or, the 
 southern or southwestern frontier. The 
 exclusion of slavery from the North- 
 western Territory and tiie prospective 
 abolition of the foreign slave trade 
 were generally, the former unani- 
 mously, agreed to; and on the basis of 
 these considerations, the Soixth insisted 
 that where slavery existed it .should not 
 be interfered with, and that it should 
 have a certain ratio of representation 
 in Congress. And now, Sir, I am one, 
 who, believing such to be the under- 
 standing on which the Constitution was 
 framed, mean to abide by it. 
 
 There is another principle, equally 
 clear, by which I mean to abide ; and 
 that is, that in the Convention, and in 
 the first Congress, wOien appealed to on 
 the subject by petitions, and all along 
 in the history of this government, it 
 was and has been a conceded p/oint, that 
 slavery in the States in which it exists 
 is a matter of State regulation exclu- 
 sively, and that Congress has not the 
 least power over it, or right to interfere 
 with it. Therefore I say, that all agita- 
 tions and attempts to disturb the rela- 
 tions between master and slave, by per- 
 sons not living in the slave States, are 
 unconstitutional in their spirit, and are, 
 in my opinion, productive of nothing 
 but evil and mischief. I countenance 
 none of them. The manner in which 
 the governments of those States where 
 slavery exists are to regidate it, is for 
 their own consideration, under their re- 
 sponsibility to their constituents, to the 
 general laws of propriety, humanity, 
 and justice, and to God. Associations 
 formed elsewhere, springing from a feel- 
 intr of humanitv, or any other cause, 
 have nothing whatever to do with it, 
 nor right to interfere with it. They 
 have never received any encouragement 
 from me, and they never will. In my 
 opinion, they have done nothing but 
 delay and defeat their own professed 
 objects. 
 
 I have now stated, as I understand it, 
 the condition of things upoF. the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution of the United 
 
0(2 
 
 EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 States. "What has happened since? 
 Sir, it has happened that, above and be- 
 yond all contemplation or expectation 
 of the original fraaiers of the Constitu- 
 tion, or the people who adopted it, for- 
 eign territory' has been acquired by 
 cession, first from France, and then 
 fionc Spain, on our southern frontier. 
 And wliat has been the result? Five 
 slave-holding States have been created 
 and added to the Union, bringing ten 
 Senators into this body, (I include 
 Texas, which I consider in the light of 
 a foreign acquisition also,) and up to 
 this hour in which I address you, not 
 one free State has been admitted to the 
 Union from all this acquired territory! 
 
 Mk. Berrien (in his seat). Yes, Iowa. 
 
 Iowa is not yet in tlie Union. Her 
 Senators are not here. Wlien she comes 
 in, there will be one to five, one free 
 State to five slave States, formed out of 
 new territories. Now, it seems strange 
 to me that there should be any com- 
 plaint of injustice exercised by the Xoiili 
 toward the South. Northern votes have 
 been necessary, they have been ready, 
 and they have been given, to aid in the 
 admission of these five new slave-holdinsr 
 States. These are fact.s; and as the gen- 
 tleman from Georgia has very properly 
 put it as a case in which we arc to pre- 
 sent ourselves before the world for its 
 judgment, let us now see how we stand. 
 I do not represent the North. I state 
 my own case; and I present the matter 
 in that light in which I am willing, as 
 an individual member of Congress, to be 
 judged by civilized humanity. I say 
 then, that, according to true history, the 
 Blave-holding interest in this country 
 has not been a disfavored interest; it 
 has not oeen disfavored by the North. 
 'J'he North has concurred to brimr in 
 these five slave-holding States out of 
 newly acquired territory, which acquisi- 
 tions were not at all in the contempla- 
 tion of the Convention which formed the 
 Constitution, or of the people when tliey 
 agreed that there should be a represen- 
 tation of three fifths of the slaves in the 
 then existing States. 
 
 Mr. rresidcnt, what is the result of 
 
 this? We stand here now, at least 1 do, 
 for one, to say, that, considering there 
 have been already five new slave-holding 
 States formed out of ne<\-ly acquired ter- 
 ritory, and only one non-slave-holding 
 State, at most, I do not feel that I am 
 called on to go further; I do not feel the 
 obligation to yield more. But our friends 
 of the South say. You deprive us of 
 all our rights. We have fought for this 
 territoiy, and you deny us participation 
 in it. Let us consider this question as 
 it really is; and since the honorable gen- 
 tleman from Georgia proposes to leave 
 the case to the enlightened and impartial 
 judgment of mankind, and as I agree 
 with him that it is a case proper to be 
 considered by the enlightened part of 
 mankind, let us see how the matter in 
 truth stands. Gentlemen who advocate 
 the case which my honorable friend from 
 Georgia, with so much ability, sustains, 
 declare that we invade their rights, that 
 we deprive them of a participation in the 
 enjoyment of territories acquired by the 
 common services and common exertions 
 of all. Is this true? IIow deprive? Of 
 what do we deprive them? Why, they 
 say that we deprive them of the privi- 
 lege of carrying their slaves, as slaves, 
 into the new tei-ritories. Well, Sir, what 
 is the amount of that? They say that 
 in this way we deprive them of the 
 opportunity of going into this acquired 
 territory with their property. Their 
 "property"? What do they mean by 
 " property " ? AVe certainly do not de- 
 prive them of the privilege of going into 
 these newly acquired territories with all 
 that, in the general estimate of human 
 society, in the general, and commcn, and 
 universal understanding of mankind, is 
 esteemed property. Not at all. The 
 truth is just this. They have, in their 
 own States, peculiar laws, which create 
 property in persons. They have a sys- 
 tem of local legislation on which slavery 
 rests; while everybody agrees that it is 
 against natural law, or at least against 
 the common understanding which pre- 
 vails among men as to what is natural 
 law. 
 
 I am not going into metaphysics, fot 
 therein I should encounter the houorar 
 
EXCLUSION OF SLAVKRY FROM THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 i73 
 
 ble nieiiiber from Soutli C;iro]in;i,^ and 
 we should find "'no end, in wandering 
 mazes lost," until after the time for the 
 adjournment of Congress. The Southern 
 States liavo peculiar laws, and by those 
 laws there is property in slaves. This 
 is purely local. The real meaning, then, 
 of Soutiiern gentlemen, in making this 
 complaint, is, that they cannot go into 
 the territories of the United States car- 
 rying with them their own peculiar local 
 law, a law which creates property in per- 
 sons. This, according to their own 
 statement, is all the ground of complaint 
 they have. Now here, 1 think, gentle- 
 men are unjust towards us. How un- 
 just they are, others will judge; genera- 
 tions that will come after us will judge. 
 It will not be contended that this sort of 
 personal slavery exists by general law. 
 It exists only by local law. I do not 
 mean to deny the validity of that local 
 law where it is established ; but I say it 
 is, after all, local law\ It is nothing 
 more. And wherever that local law does 
 not extend, property in persons does not 
 exist. Well, Sir, what is now the de- 
 mand on the part of our Southern friends? 
 They say, " We will carry our local 
 laws with us wherever we go. We in- 
 sist that Congress does us injustice un- 
 less it establishes in the territory in 
 which yve wish to go our own local law." 
 This demand I for one resist, and shall 
 resist. It goes upon the idea that there 
 is an inequality, unless persons under 
 this local law, and holding property by 
 authority of that law, can go into new 
 territory and there establish that local 
 law, to the exclusion of the general law. 
 ^Ir. President, it was a maxim of the 
 civil law, that, between slavery and 
 freedom, freedom should always be pre- 
 sumed, and slavery must always be 
 ])roved. If any question arose as to the 
 Hiatus of an individual in Rome, he was 
 presumed to be free until he was proved 
 to be a slave, because slavery is an ex- 
 ception to the general rule. Such, I 
 suppose, is the general law of mankind. 
 An individual is to be presumed to be 
 free, until a law can be produced which 
 creates ownership in his person. I do 
 ^ Mr. Ca.houii. 
 
 not dispute the force and validity of the 
 local law, as I have already said; but I 
 say, it is a matter to be proved; and 
 therefore, if individuals go into any i)art 
 of the earth, it is to be proved that they 
 are not freemen, or else the presumption 
 is that they are. 
 
 Now our friends seem to think tliat an 
 inequality arises from restraining them 
 from going into the territories, uidosa 
 there be a law provided which shall pro- 
 tect their ownership in persons. The 
 assertion is, that we create an inequality. 
 Is there nothing to be said on the other 
 side in relation to inequality? Sir, from 
 the date of this Constitution, and in the 
 counsels that formed and established 
 this Constitution, and I suppose in all 
 men's judgment since, it is received as 
 a settled truth, that slave labor and free 
 labor do not exist well together. I have 
 before me a declaration of Mr. IMason, 
 in the Convention that formed the Con- 
 stitution, to that effect. Mr. Mason, as 
 is well known, was a distinguished mem- 
 ber from Virginia. He says that the 
 objection to slave labor is, that it puts 
 free white labor in disrepute; that it 
 causes labor to be regarded as deroga- 
 tory to the chai-acter of the free white 
 man, and that the free white man de- 
 spises to work, to use his expression, 
 where slaves are employed. This is a 
 matter of great interest to the free States, 
 if it be true, as to a great extent it cer- 
 tainly is, that wherever slave labor pre- 
 vails free white labor is excluded or dis- 
 couraged. I agree that slave labor does 
 not necessarily exclude free labor totally. 
 There is free white labor in Virginia, 
 Tennessee, and other States, where most 
 of the labor is done by slaves. But it 
 necessarily loses something of its re- 
 spectability, by the side of, and when 
 associated with, slave labor. Wherever 
 labor is mainly performed by slaves, it 
 is regarded as degrading to freemen. 
 The freemen of the North, therefore, 
 have a deep interest in keeping labor 
 free, exclusively free, in the new terri 
 tories. 
 
 But, Sir, let us look further into this 
 alleged inequality. There is no pre- 
 tence that Southern people may not go 
 
 k 
 
574 
 
 EXCLUSION OF SLAVERY FROM THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 into territory which shall be subject to 
 the Ordinance of 17b7. The only re- 
 straint is, that they shall not carry slaves 
 thither, and continue that relation. 
 They say this shuts them altogether out. 
 Why, Sir, there can be nothing more 
 inaccurate in point of fact than this 
 statement. I understand that one half 
 the people who settled Illinois are peo- 
 ple, or descendants of people, who came 
 from the Southern States. And I sup- 
 pose that one third of the people of Ohio 
 are those, or descendants of those, who 
 emigrated from the South ; and I ven- 
 ture to say, that, in respect to those two 
 States, they are at this day settled by 
 people of Southern origin in as great a 
 proportion as they are by people of 
 Northern origin, according to the gen- 
 eral numbers and proportion of people. 
 South and Xorth. There are as many 
 people from the South, in j^roportion to 
 the whole people of the South, in those 
 States, as there are from the North, in 
 proportion to the whole people of the 
 North. There is, then, no exclusion of 
 Southern people; there is only the ex- 
 clusion of a peculiar local law. Neither 
 in principle nor in fact is there any in- 
 equality. 
 
 The question now is, whether it is not 
 competent to Congress, in the exercise 
 of a fair and just discretion, considering 
 that there have been five slave-holding 
 States added to this Union out of foreign 
 acquisitions, and as yet only one free 
 State, to prevent their further increase. 
 That is the question. I see no injustice 
 in it. As to the power of Congress, I 
 have nothing to add to what I said the 
 other day. Congress has full power over 
 the subject. It may establish any such 
 government, and any such laws, in the 
 tftrritories, as in its discretion it may see 
 fit. It is subject, of course, to the rules 
 pf justice and propriety; but it is under 
 no constitutional restraints. 
 
 I have said that 1 shall consent to no 
 extension of the area of slavery upon 
 this continent, nor to any increase of 
 slave representation in the other house 
 of Congress. I have now stated my rea- 
 sons for my conduct and my vote. We 
 
 of the North have already gone, in this 
 respect, far beyond aU that any South- 
 ern man could have expected, or did ex- 
 pect, at the time of the adoption of the 
 Constitution. I repeat the statement of 
 the fact of the creation of five new slave- 
 holding States out of newly acquired 
 territory. We have done that which, if 
 those who framed the Constitution had 
 foreseen, they never would have agreed 
 to slave representation. We have yielded 
 thus far; and we have now in the House 
 of Representatives twenty persons vot- 
 ing upon this very question, and upon 
 aU other questions, who are there only 
 in virtue of the representation of slaves. 
 Let me conclude, therefore, by re- 
 marking, that, while I am willing to 
 present this as showing my own judg- 
 ment and position, in regard to this 
 case, and I beg it to be understood that 
 I am speaking for no other than myself, 
 and while I am willing to offer it to the 
 whole world as my own justification, I 
 rest on these propositions: First, That 
 when this Constitution was adopted, 
 nobody looked for any new acquisition 
 of territory to be formed into slave-hold- 
 ing States. Secondly, That the princi- 
 ples of the Constitution prohibited, and 
 were intended to prohibit, and should be 
 construed to prohibit, all interference of 
 the general government with slavery as 
 it existed and as it still exists in the 
 States. And then, looking to the oper- 
 ation of these new acquisitions, which 
 have in this great degree had the effect 
 of strengthening that interest in the 
 South by the addition of these five 
 States, I feel tliat there is nothing un- 
 just, nothing of which any honest mau 
 can complain, if he is intelligent, and I 
 feel that there is nothing with which the 
 civilized world, if they take notice of so 
 humble a person as myself, wiU reproach 
 me, when I say, as I said the other day, 
 that I have made up my mind, for one, 
 that under no circumstances will I con- 
 sent to the further extension of the 
 area of slavery in the United States, 
 or to the further increase of slave repre- 
 sentation in tlie House of Represei\ta- 
 tives. 
 
SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 DELIVEKED AT A MEETING OF THE CITIZENS OF MARSIIFIELD, MASS., OS 
 
 THE 1st of SEPTEMBER, 1848. 
 
 [The following correspondence explains 
 the occasion of tlie nicotinfj at Marshticlil, 
 at which the following speech was deliv- 
 ered. 
 
 " Marshftld, ^fass., Aug. 2, 1848. 
 
 " Hon. Daniel Webster: — 
 
 "Dear Sir, — The uiulersiijned, Wliii^s and 
 fellow-t-itizens of yours, are desirous of seeing; 
 and conferring with you on tiie subject of our 
 national policy, and of hearing j'our opinions 
 freeiv expressed thereon. We look anxiously 
 on the present aspect of public affairs, and on 
 tlie position in wliich the Whig party, and espe- 
 cially Northern Whigs, are now placed. We 
 should be grieved indeed to see General Cass — 
 so decided an opponent of all those measures 
 which we thinlc essential to tlie honor and inter- 
 ests of the country and the prosjierity of all 
 classes — elected to tlie chief magistracy. On 
 the other hand, it is not to be concealed, that 
 there is much discontent with the nomination 
 made by the late Philadelphia Convention, of a 
 Southern man, a military man, fresh from bloody 
 tields, and known only by his sword, as a Whig 
 candidate for the Presidency. 
 
 "So far as is in our humble ability, we desire 
 to preserve the Union and the Whig [larty, and 
 to perpetuate Whig principles ; but we wish lo 
 see also that these principles ma^- be preserved, 
 and this Union perpetuated, in a manner consist- 
 ent with the rights of the Free States, and the 
 prevention of the fartlier extension of the slave 
 power; and we dread the effects of the i)rece- 
 dent, which we think eminently dangerous, and 
 as not exiiibiting us in a favorable liglit to the 
 nations ot the earth, of elevating a mere military 
 man to the Presidency. 
 
 " We think a crisis" is upon us ; and we would 
 gladly know how we may best discharge our 
 duties as true Americans, honest men, and good 
 Whigs. To you, who have been so long in pub- 
 lic life, and are al)le from your great experience 
 and unrivalled ability to give us information 
 and advice, and upon whom, as neighbors and 
 friends, we think we have some claims, we nat- 
 urally look, and we should be exceedingly grat- 
 ified if, in any wav, public or private, you would 
 express your opinion upon interesting public 
 questions now peiuling, with that boldness and 
 distinctness with which you are accustomed to 
 declare your sentiments. It you can concur 
 
 with our wishes, please signify to ns in what 
 manner it would be most agreeable to you that 
 they should be carried into effect. 
 
 ""With very great regard, your obedient ser- 
 vants, 
 
 "Daniel Phillips, 
 GEoKtiE Lkonaho, 
 Geo. H. Wltiikkhee, 
 and many others." 
 
 To this invitation Mr. Webster returned 
 the following reply : — 
 
 " Marshjield, Aug. 3, 1848. 
 
 "Gentlemen, — I have received your letter. 
 The critical state of things at Washington obliges 
 me to think it my duty to repair thither imme- 
 diately and take my seat in the Senate, notwith- 
 standing the state of my health and the heat of 
 the weather render it disagreeable lor me to leave 
 home. 
 
 " I cannot, therefore, comply with your wishes 
 at ])resent; but on my return, if such should 
 continue to be your desire, I will meet you and 
 the other Whigs of Marshtield. in an unceremo- 
 nious manner, that we may confer upon the top- 
 ics to which your letter relates. 
 
 "I am, Gentlemen, with esteem and friend- 
 ship, 
 
 " Your obliged fellow-citizen, 
 
 '' Daniel VVebster. 
 
 " To Messrs. Daniel Phillii's, Geokge Leon- 
 AUD, Geo. H. Wethekbee, and others. 
 
 Soon after IMr. Webster's return from 
 Washington, it was arranged that the meet- 
 ing should take place at the " Winglcir 
 House," the ancient seat of the Winslow 
 family, now forming a part of Mr. Web- 
 ster's farm at Marshfit'ld, on Friday, the 
 first day of September.] 
 
 Although it is not my purpose, dur- 
 ing the present recess of Congress, 
 frequently to address public assemblies 
 on political subjects, I have felt it my 
 duty to comply with your request, as 
 neighbors and townsmen, and to meet 
 you to-day; and I am not unwilling to 
 
576 
 
 SPEECH AT MAKSHFIKLD. 
 
 avail myself of this occasion to signify 
 to the people of the United States my 
 opinious upon the present state of our 
 public affairs. I shall perforni that 
 duty, certainly with great frankness, I 
 hope with candor. It is not my inten- 
 \ tion to-day to endeavor to carry any 
 \ point, to act as any man's advocate, to 
 put up or put down anybody. I wish, 
 and I propose, to address you in the lan- 
 guage and in the spirit of conference and 
 consultation. In the present extraordi- 
 nary crisis of our public concerns, I de- 
 sire to liold no man's conscience but my 
 own. My own opinions I shall commu- 
 nicate, freely and fearlessly, with equal 
 disregard to consequences, whetlier they 
 respect myself or respect others. 
 
 We are on the eve of a highly impor- 
 tant Presidential election. In two or 
 three months the people of this country 
 will be called upon to elect an executive 
 chief magistrate of the United States; 
 and all see, and all feel, that great in- 
 terests of the country are to be affected, 
 for good or evil, by the results of that 
 election. Of the interesthig subjects 
 over which the person who shall be 
 elected must necessarily exercise more 
 or less control, there are especially three, 
 vitally connected, in my judgment, with 
 the honor and happiness of the country. 
 In the first place, the honor and happi- 
 ness of the country imjH'ratively recjuire 
 that there shall be a chief magistrate 
 elected who shall not plunge us into 
 further wars of ambition and conquest. 
 In the second place, in my judgment, 
 the interests of the country and the feel- 
 ing of a vast majority of the people 
 require that a President of these United 
 States should be elected, who will nei- 
 tlier use official influence to promote, 
 nor f<'el any desire in his heart to pro- 
 mote, the further extension of slavery 
 in this community, or its further influ- 
 ence in the public councils. In the third 
 place, if I have any just estimate, if an 
 experience not now a short one in public 
 affairs has enabled me to know any thing 
 of what the public interest demands, tin* 
 state of the country requires an essential 
 refi>nn in (lie system of revenue and 
 finance such as siiall restore the pros- 
 
 perity, by prompting the industry and 
 fostering the labor of the country, in its 
 various branches. There are other 
 things important, but I will not allude 
 to them. These three I hold to be 
 essential. 
 
 There are three candidates presented 
 to the choice of tlie Ameiican people. 
 General Taylor is the Whig candidate, 
 standing upon tiie nomination of the 
 Whig Convention ; General Cass is the 
 candidate of the opposing and now 
 dominant party in the country; and a 
 third candidate is presented in the per- 
 son of Mr. Van liuren, by a convention 
 of citizens assembled at Buffalo, whose 
 object, or whose main object, as it ap- 
 pears to me, is contained in one of those 
 considerations which I have mentioned; 
 and that is, the prevention of the fur- 
 ther increase of slaverj-; — an object in 
 which you and I, Gentlemen, so far as 
 that goes, entirely concur with them, I 
 am sure. 
 
 Most of us who are here to-day are 
 Whigs, National Whigs, Massachusetts 
 Whigs, Old Colony Whigs, and Marsh- 
 field Whigs, and if the Whig nomina- 
 tion made at Philadelphia were entirely 
 satisfactory to the people of Massa- 
 chusetts and to us, our path of duty 
 would be plain. But the nomination of 
 a candidate for the Presidency made by 
 the Whig Convention at Pliiladelpliia is 
 not satisfactory to the Whigs of Massa- 
 chusetts. That is certain, and it would 
 be idle to attempt to conceal the fact. 
 It is more just and more patriotic, it 
 is more manly and practical, to take 
 facts as they are, and things as they 
 are, and to deduce our own convic- 
 tion of duty from what exists before 
 us. However respectable and distin- 
 guished in the line of liis own profes- 
 sion, or however estimable as a private 
 citizen. General Taylor is a military 
 man, and a military man merely. He 
 has had no training in civil affairs. He 
 has performed no functions of a civil 
 nature under the Constitution of his 
 ciiuntry. He has been known and is 
 known, only by his brilliant achieve- 
 ments at tlie head of an army. Now 
 the Wiiigs of Massachusetts, and I 
 
SrEECH AT MARSHFIELD. 
 
 
 among them, are of opinion that it was 
 not wise, nor discreet, to go to the army 
 for the selection of a candidate for the 
 Presidency of the United States. It is 
 the first instance in their history in 
 which any man of mere military char- 
 acter has been proposed for that high 
 office. General Washington was a great 
 military character; but by far a greater 
 civil character. He had been employed 
 iu the councils of his country, from the 
 earliest dawn of the Revolution. He 
 had been in the Continental Congress, 
 and he hard established a gieat character 
 for civil wisdom and judgment. After 
 the war, as you know, he was elected a 
 member of that convention which formed 
 the Constitution of the United States; 
 and it is one of the most honorable 
 tributes ever paid to him, that by that 
 assembly of good and wise men he was 
 selected to preside over their delibera- 
 tions. And he put his name first and 
 foremost to the Constitution under which 
 we live. President Harrison was bred 
 a soldier, and at different periods of his 
 life rendered important military services. 
 But President Harrison, nevertheless, 
 was for a much greater period of his 
 life employed in civil than in military 
 service. For twenty years he was eitiier 
 governor of a Territory, member of one 
 or the other house of Congress, or minis- 
 ter abroad; and discharged all these 
 duties to the satisfaction of his country. 
 This case, therefore, stands by itself; 
 without a precedent or justification from 
 any thing in our previous history. It is 
 for this reason, as I imagine, that the 
 Whigs of Massachusetts feel dissatis- 
 fied with this nomination. There may 
 be other reasons, there are others; they 
 are, perhaps, of less importance, and 
 more easily to be answered. But this 
 is a well-founded objection; and in my 
 opinion it ought to have prevailed, and 
 to have prevented this nomination. I 
 know enough of history to see the dan- 
 gerous tendency of such resorts to mili- 
 tary popularity. 
 
 But, if I may borrow a mercantile ex- 
 pression, I may now venture to say, that 
 there is anotlier side to this account. 
 The impartiality with which I propose 
 
 I 
 
 37 
 
 to discharge my duty to-day requires 
 that it should be stated. And, in the 
 first place, it is to be considered, that 
 General Taylor has been nominated by 
 a AV'hig convention, held in conformity 
 with the usages of the Whig party, and, 
 so far as I know, fairly nominated. It 
 is to be considered, also, that lie is the 
 only Whig before the people, as a candi- 
 date for the Presidency; and no citizen 
 of the country, with any effect, can vote 
 for any otlier ^^'hig, let his preferences 
 be what they might or may. 
 
 In the next place, it is proper to con- 
 sider the personal character of General 
 Taylor, and his political opinions, rela- 
 tions, and connections, so far as they are 
 known. In advancing to a few observa- 
 tions on this part of the case, I wish 
 everybody to understand that I have 
 no personal acquaintance whatever with 
 General Taylor. I never saw him but 
 once, and that but for a few moments in 
 the Senate. The sources of informa- 
 tion are open to you, as well as to me, 
 from which I derive what I know of his 
 character and opinions. But I have 
 endeavored to obtain access to those 
 sources. I have endeavoi'ed to inform 
 and instruct myself by communication 
 with those who have known him in his 
 profession as a soldier, in his associa- 
 tions as a man, in his conversations and 
 opinions on political subjects; and I will 
 tell you frankly what I think of him, 
 according to the best lights which J have 
 been able to obtain. 
 
 I need not say, that he is a skilful, 
 brave, and gallant soldier. That is ad- 
 mitted by all. With me, all that goes 
 but very little way to make out the 
 proper qualifications for President of 
 the United States. But what is more 
 important, I believe that he is an entirely 
 honest and upright man. I believe that 
 he is modest, clear-headed, of indepen- 
 dent and manly character, possessing a 
 mind trained by proper discipline and 
 self-control. I believe that he is esti- 
 mable and amiable in all the relations of 
 private life. I believe that he possesses 
 a reputation for equity and fair judg- 
 ment, which gives him an influence over 
 those under his command beyond wfiat 
 
578 
 
 SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 is conferred by the authority of station. 
 I believe that he is a man possessing the 
 confidence and attachment of all who 
 tiave been near him and know hiui. 
 And I believe, that, if elected President, 
 he will do his best to relieve the country 
 from present evils, and guard it against 
 future dangers. So much for what I 
 think of the personal character of Gen- 
 eral Taylor. 
 
 I will say, too, that, so far as I have 
 observed, his coudact since he has been 
 * candidate for the office of President 
 h?Ji been irreproachable. I hear no in- 
 trigue imputed to him, no contumelious 
 treatment of rivals. I do not find him 
 making promises or holding out hopes 
 to any men or any party. I do not find 
 hiiji putting forth any pretensions of his 
 own, and therefore I think of him very 
 nuich as he seems to think of himself, 
 tlSat he is an honest man, of an inde- 
 ij'endent mind and of upright intentions. 
 And as for the subject of his qualifica- 
 ilions for the Presidency, he has himself 
 /nothing to say about it. 
 ' And now, friends and fellow-towns- 
 men, with respect to his political opin- 
 ' ions and relations, I can say at once, 
 that I believe him to be a Whig ; I be- 
 lieve him to hold to the main doctrines 
 of the \Vhig party. To think otherwise 
 would be to impute to him a degree of 
 tergiversation and fraudulent deception 
 of which I suppose him to be entirely 
 incapable. 
 
 Gentlemen, it is worth our wliile to 
 consider in what manner General Taylor 
 has become a candidate for the Presi- 
 dency of the United States. It would 
 be a great mistake to suppose that he 
 was made such merely by the nomination 
 of the Pliiladelphia Convention, lie had 
 been nominated for the Presidency in a 
 great many States, by various conven- 
 tions and meetings of the people, a year 
 before the convention at Philadelpliia 
 a.ssembled. The whole history of the 
 world shows, whether in the most civil- 
 iae<l or the most barbarous ages, that the 
 affectiouj and admiration of mankind 
 are at all times easily carried away to- 
 wards successful military achievements. 
 The stoo' of all republics and of all free 
 
 governments shows this. VTe know in 
 the case now before us, that so soon aa 
 brilliant success had attended General 
 Taylor's operations on the Kio Grande, 
 at Palo Alto, and ^Monterey, spontane- 
 ous nominations of him sprang up. 
 
 And here let me say, that, generally, 
 these were AVhig nominations. Not uni- 
 versally, but generally, these nomina- 
 tions, made at various times before ihe 
 meeting of the Philadelphia Convention, 
 were Whig nominations. General Tay- 
 lor was e^steemed, from the moment that 
 his military achievements brought him 
 into public notice, as a Whig general. 
 You all remember, that when we were 
 discussing his merits in Congress, upon 
 the question of giving thanks to the 
 army under his command, and to him- 
 self, among other objections, the friends 
 and supporters of Mr. Polk's adminis- 
 tration denounced him as being, and be- 
 cause he was, a Whig general. My 
 friends near me, whom I am happy to 
 see here, belonging to the House of Kep- 
 resentatives, will remember that. ■* lead- 
 ing man of the party of the adminiatra- 
 tion declared in his place in Congress, 
 that the policy of the administration, 
 connected with the ^lexican war, would 
 never prosper, till the President recalled 
 those Whig generals, Scott and Taylor. 
 The policy was a Democratic policy. 
 The argument was, that the men to 
 carry out this policy should be Demo- 
 cratic men; the officers to fight the 
 battles should be Democratic officers; 
 and on that ground, the ordinary vote of 
 thanks was refused to General Taylor, 
 on the part of the fi-iends of the admin- 
 istration. 
 
 Let me remark, in the next place, 
 that there was no particular purpose con- 
 nected with the advancement of slavery 
 entertained, generally, by those who 
 nominated him. As I have said, they 
 were Whig nominations, more in the 
 Middle and Northern than in the South- 
 ern States, and by persons who never 
 entertained the slightest desire, by his 
 nomination, or by any other means, to 
 extend the area of slavery of the human 
 race, or the influance of the slave-holding 
 States in the councils of the nation 
 
SPEKCIT AT MARSHFIELD. 
 
 579 
 
 rhe Quaker city of Philadelphia nomi- 
 nated General Taylor, the ^Vllig•s all 
 over the Union nominated him, with no 
 such view. A great convention was as- 
 sembled in Xew York, of highly influ- 
 ential and respectable gentlemen, very 
 many of them well known to me, and 
 they nominated General Taylor with no 
 such view. General Taylor's nomina- 
 tion was hailed, not very extensively, 
 but by some enthusiastic and not very 
 far-seeing people in the Commonwealth 
 of Massachusetts. There were, even 
 among us, in our own State, Whigs 
 quite early enough, certainly, in mani- 
 festing their confidence in this nomina- 
 tion; a little too early, it may be, in 
 uttering notes of exultation for the an- 
 ticipated triumph. It would have been 
 better if they had waited. 
 
 Xow the truth is. Gentlemen, — and 
 no man can avoid seeing it, unless, as 
 sometimes happens, the object is too 
 near our eyes to be distinctly discerned, 
 — the truth is, that in these nomina- 
 tions, and also in the nomination at 
 Philadelphia, in these conventions, and 
 also in the convention at Philadelphia, 
 General Taylor was nominated exactly 
 for this reason; — that, believing him to 
 be a ^^^lig, they thought he could be 
 chosen more easily than any other AVhig. 
 This is the whole of it. That saga- 
 cious, wise, far-seeing doctrine of avail- 
 ability lies at the bottom of the whole 
 matter. So far, then, from imputing 
 any motive to these conventions over 
 the comitiy, or to the convention in 
 Philadelphia, as operating on a major- 
 ity of the members, to promote slavery 
 by the nomiiration of General Taylor, 
 I do not believe a word of it, — not one 
 word. I see that one part of what is 
 called the Platform of the Buffalo Con- 
 vention says that the candidates before 
 the jDublic were nominated under the 
 dictation of the slave power. I do not 
 believe a word of it. 
 
 In the first j^lace, a very great majority 
 of the convention at Philadelphia was 
 composed of members from the Free 
 Stafceji. By a very great majority they 
 might have nominated anybody they 
 chose. But the Free States did not 
 
 choose to nominate a Free State man, or 
 a Northern man. Even our neiglibors, 
 the States of New England, with the 
 exception of Xew Hampshire and a 
 part of Maine, neither proposed nor 
 concurred in the nomination of any 
 Northern man. Vermont would hear of 
 nothing but the nomination of a South- 
 ern and slave-holding candidate. Con- 
 necticut was of the same mind, and so 
 was Khode Island. The North made no 
 demand, nor presented any request for a 
 Northern candidate, nor attempted any 
 union among themselves for the purpose 
 of promoting the nomination of such a 
 candidate. They were content to take 
 their choice among the candidates of th*» 
 South. It is preposterous, therefore, to 
 pretend that a candidate from the Slave 
 States has been forced upon the North 
 by Southern dictation. 
 
 In the next place, it is true that there 
 were persons from New England who 
 were extremely zealous and active in pro- 
 cm-mg the nomination of General Tay- 
 lor, but they were men who would cut 
 off their right hands before they would 
 do any thing to promote slavery in the 
 United States. I do not admire their 
 policy; indeed I have very little respect 
 for it, understand that; but I acquit 
 them of bad motives. I know the lead- 
 ing men in that convention. I think I 
 understand the motives that governed 
 them . Theii' reasoning was this : ' ' Gen- 
 eral Taylor is a Whig; not eminent in 
 civil life, not known in civil life, but 
 still a man of sound Whig principles. 
 Circumstances have given him a reputa- 
 tion and eclat in the country. If he shall 
 be the Whig candidate, he will be 
 chosen; and with him there will come 
 into the two houses of Congi-ess an 
 augmentation of Whig strength. The 
 Whig majority- in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives will be increased. The Demo- 
 cratic majority in the Senate wull be 
 diminished. That was the view, and 
 such was the motive, however wise or 
 however unwise, that governed a veiy 
 large majority of those who composed 
 the convention at Philadelphia. In 
 my opinion, this was a wholly unwise 
 policy; it was short-sighted and tempor- 
 
 k 
 
680 
 
 SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 izing on questions of great principles. 
 Bui T acquit those who adopted it of any 
 Buch motives as have been ascribed to 
 them, and especially of what has been 
 ascribed to them in a part of this Buffalo 
 Platform. 
 
 Such, Gentlemen, are the circum- 
 stances connected with the nomination 
 of General Taylor I only repeat, that 
 those who had the greatest agency origi- 
 nally in bringing him before the people 
 were Whig conventions and \Miig meet- 
 ings in the several States, Free States, 
 and that a great majority of that con- 
 vention which nominated him in Pliila- 
 delphia was from the Free States, and 
 might have rejected him if they had 
 chosen, and selected anybody else on 
 •whom they could have united. 
 
 This is the case. Gentlemen, as far as 
 I can discern it, and exercising upon it 
 as impartial a judgment as I can form, 
 — this is the case presented to the AVhigs, 
 so far as respects the personal fitness 
 and personal character of General Tay- 
 lor, and the circumstances which have 
 caused his nomination. If we were 
 weighing the propriety of nominating 
 such a person to the Presidency, it would 
 be one thing; if we are considering the 
 expediency, or I may say the necessity 
 (which to some minds may seem to be 
 the case), of well-meaning and patriotic 
 A^liigs supporting him after he is nom- 
 inated, that is quite another thing. 
 
 This leads us to the consideration of 
 what the AVliigs of Massachusetts are to 
 do, or such of them as do not see fit to 
 support General Taylor. Of course they 
 must vote for General Cass, or they nmst 
 vote for Mr. Van Bui-en, or they must 
 omit to vote at all. I agree that there 
 are cases in which, if we do not know in 
 what direction to move, we ought to 
 stand still till we do. I admit that 
 there are cases in which, if one does not 
 I know what to do, he had better not do 
 he knows not what. But on a question 
 80 important to ourselves and the coun- 
 try, on a question of a popular election 
 under constitutional forms, in which it 
 is impossible that every man's private 
 judgment can prevail, or every man's 
 private choice succeed, it becomes a 
 
 question of conscientious duty and pa« 
 triotism, what it is best to do upon the 
 whole. 
 
 Under the practical administration of 
 the Constitution of the United States, 
 there cannot be a great range of personal 
 choice in regard to the candidate for the 
 Presidency. In order that their votes 
 may be effective, men must give them 
 for some one of those who are prcmi- 
 nently before the public. This is the 
 necessary result of our forms of govern- 
 ment and of the provisions of the Con- 
 stitution. The people are therefore 
 brought sometimes to the necessity of 
 choosing between candidates neither of 
 whom would be their original, personal 
 choice. 
 
 Now, what is the contingency? "What 
 is tlie alternative presented to tlie Whigs 
 of Massachusetts? In my judgment, 
 fellow-citizens, it is simply this; tlie 
 question is between General Taylor and 
 General Cass. And that is t])e only 
 question. I am no more .skilled to 
 foresee political occurrences than others. 
 I judge only for myself. But, in my 
 opinion, there is not tlie least proba- 
 bility of any other result than the choice 
 of General Taylor or General Cass. I 
 know that the enthusiasm of a new- 
 formed party, that the popularity of a 
 new-formed name, svithout communicat- 
 ing any new-formed idea, may lead men 
 to think that the sky is to fall, and that 
 larks are suddenly to be taken. I enter- 
 tain no such expectations. I speak with- 
 out disrespect of the Free Soil party. I 
 have read their platform, and though I 
 think there are some unsound places in 
 it, I can stand on it pretty well. But I 
 see nothing in it both new and valuable, 
 " What is valuable is not new, and what 
 is new is not valuable." If the term 
 Free Soil party, or Free Soil men, desig- 
 nate those who are fixed, and unalter- 
 ably fixed, in favor of the restriction of 
 slavery, are so to-day and were so yes- 
 terday, and have been so for some time, 
 then I hold myself to be as good a Free 
 Soil man as any of the Buffalo Conven- 
 tion. I pray to know who is to put be- 
 neath my feet a freer soil than that upon 
 which 1 iuive stood ever since I have been 
 
SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 081 
 
 m public life? I pray to know -who is 
 to make my lips freer than they always 
 have been, or to inspire into my breast 
 a more resolute and fixed detenr'nation 
 to resist the advances and encroachments 
 of the slave power, than has inhabited it 
 since I for the first time opened my 
 mouth in the councils of the country? 
 The gentlemen at Buffalo have placed 
 at the head of their party ^Ir. Van 
 Buren, a gentleman for whom I have all 
 the respect that I ought to entertain for 
 one with whom I have been associated, 
 in some degree, in public life for many 
 years, and who has held the highest offi- 
 ces in the couutiy. But really, speaking 
 for myself, if I were to express confi- 
 dence in ^Ir. Van Buren and liis politics 
 on any question, and most especially this 
 verj' question of slavery, T think the scene 
 would border upon the ludicrous, if not 
 upon the contemptible. I never pro- 
 posed any thing in my life of a general 
 and public nature, that Mr. Van Buren 
 did not oppose. Xor has it happened to 
 me to support any important measure 
 proposed by him. If he and I now were 
 to find ourselves together under the Free 
 Soil flag, I am sure that, with his accus- 
 tomed good nature, he would laugh. If 
 nobody were present, we should both 
 laugh at the strange occurrences and 
 stranger jumbles of political life that 
 should have brought us to sit down 
 cosily and snugly, side by side, on the 
 same platform. That the leader of the 
 Free Spoil party should so suddenly have 
 become the leader of the Free Soil party 
 would be a joke to shake his sides and 
 mine. 
 
 Gentlemen, my first acquaintance in 
 public life with 'Mv. Van Buren was 
 when he was pressing with great power 
 the election of Mr. Crawford to the 
 Presidency, against Mr. Adams. Mr. 
 Crawford was not elected, and ]\Ir. 
 Adams was. Mr. Van Buren was in 
 the Senate nearly the whole of that ad- 
 ministration; and during the remainder 
 of it he was Governor of the State of 
 New York. It is notorious that he was 
 the soul and centre, throughout the whole 
 of Mr. Adams's term, of the opposition 
 made to him. He did more to prevent 
 
 !Mr. Adams's re-tlection in 1828, and to 
 obtain General Jackson's election, than 
 any other man, — yes, than any ten other 
 men in the country. 
 
 General Jackson was chosen, and Mr. 
 Van Buren was appointed his Secretary 
 of State. It .so happened that in July, 
 1829, Mr. McLane went to England to 
 arrange the controverted, diflicult, and 
 disputed point on the subject of the 
 colonial trade. Mr. Adams had held a 
 high tone on that subject. He had de- 
 manded, on the ground of reciprocity 
 and right, the introduction of our prod- 
 ucts into all parts of the British terri 
 tory, freely, in our own vessels, since 
 Great Britain was allowed to bring her 
 produce into the United States upon the 
 same terms. Mr. Adams placed this de- 
 mand upon the ground of reciprocity and 
 justice. Great Britain would not yield. 
 Mr. Van Buren, in his instructions to 
 Mr. McLane, told him to yield that 
 question of right, and to solicit the free 
 admission of American produce into the 
 British colonies, on the ground of privi- 
 lege and favor; intimating that there 
 had been a change of parties, and that 
 this favor ought not to be refused to 
 General Jackson's administration be- 
 cause it had been demanded on the 
 ground of right by Mr. Adams's. This 
 is the sum and substance of the instruc- 
 tion. 
 
 Well, Gentlemen, it was one of the 
 most painful duties of my life, on ac- 
 count of this, to refuse my assent to ]Mr. 
 Van Buren's nomination. It was novel 
 in our history, when an administration 
 changes, for the new administration to 
 seek to obtain privileges from a foreign 
 power on the assertion that they have 
 abandoned the ground of their predeces- 
 sors. I suppose that such a course is 
 held to be altogether undignified by all 
 public men. "WTien I went into the De- 
 partment of State under General Harri- 
 son, I found in the conduct of my prede- 
 cessor many things that I could have 
 wished had been otherwise. Did I re- 
 tract a jot or tittle of what Mr. Forsyth 
 had said? I took the case as he had left 
 it, and conducted it upon the principles 
 which he left. I should have consi lered 
 
582 
 
 SPEECH AT MARSHTIELD. 
 
 that I disgraced myself if I had said, 
 " Pray, my Lord Ashburton, we are 
 more rational persons than our prede- 
 cessors, we are more considerate than 
 they, and intend to adopt an entirely 
 opposite policy. Consider, my dear 
 Lord, how much more friendly, reason- 
 able, and amiable we are than our pre- 
 decessors." 
 
 But now, on this very subject of the 
 extension of the slave power, I would 
 by no means do the least injustice to 
 Mr. Van Buren. If he has come up to 
 some of tiie opinions expressed in the 
 platform of the Buffalo Convention, I 
 am very glad of it. I do not mean to 
 say that thei-e may not be very good rea- 
 sons for those of his own party who can- 
 not conscientiously vote for General Cass 
 to vote for him, because I think him 
 much the least dangerous of the two. 
 But, in truth, looking at Mr. Van Bu- 
 ren's conduct as President of the United 
 States, I am amazed to find that he 
 should be placed at the head of a party 
 professing to be, beyond all other par- 
 ties, friends of liberty and enemies of 
 African slavery in the Southern States. 
 Why, the very first thing that Mr. Van 
 Buren did after he was President was to 
 declare, that, if Congress interfered with 
 slavei y in the District of Columbia, he 
 would apply the veto to their bills. ^Ir. 
 Van Buren, in his inaugural address, 
 quotes the following expression from 
 his letter accepting his nomination: "I 
 must go into the Presidential chair the 
 inllexible and uncompromising opponent 
 of every attempt on the part of Con- 
 gress to abolish slavery in the District 
 of Columbia against the wishes of the 
 slave-holding States; and also with a 
 determination equally decided to resist 
 the slightest interference with it in the 
 States where it exists." He then pro- 
 ceeds: " I submitted also to my fellow- 
 citizens, with fulness and frankness, (he 
 reasons which led me to this determina- 
 tion. The result authorizes me to be- 
 lieve that thi'y have been approved and 
 are confided in by a majority of the peo- 
 ple of the United States, including those 
 •whom they most immediately affect. It 
 now only remains to add, that no bill 
 
 conflicting with these views can ever 
 receive my constitutional sanction.'' 
 
 In the next place, we know thai Mr. 
 Van Buren's casting vote was given for 
 a law of very doubtful propriety, — a 
 law to allow postmasters to open tlie 
 mails and see if there was any incen- 
 diary matter in them, and, if sc, to de- 
 stroy it. I do not say that there was no 
 constitutional power to pass such a law. 
 Perhaps the people of the South thought 
 it was necessai'y to protect themselve.<j 
 from incitements to insuiTection. So 
 far as any thing endangers the lives and 
 property of the South, so far I agree that 
 there may be such legislation in Congress 
 as shall prevent such results. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, no man has exercLsed 
 a more controlling influence on the con- 
 duct of his friends in this country than 
 Mr. Van Buren. I take it that the 
 most important event in our time tend- 
 ing to the extension of slavery and its 
 everlasting establishment on this conti- 
 nent, was the annexation of Texas, in 
 1844. Where was Mr. Van Buren then? 
 Let me ask. Three or four years ago, 
 where was he thex? Every friend of 
 Mr. Van Buren, so far as I know, sujv 
 ported the measure. The two Senators 
 from New York supported it, and the 
 members of the House of Representa- 
 tives from New York supported it, and 
 nobody resisted it but Whigs. And I 
 say in the face of the world, I say in 
 the face of those connected with, or 
 likely to be benefited by, the Buffalo 
 Convention, — I say to all of them, tliat 
 there has been no part}' of men in this 
 country which h;vs firndy and sternly re- 
 sisted the progress of the slave power 
 but the Whigs. 
 
 Why, look to this very question of 
 the annexation of Texas. We talk of 
 the dictation of the slave power! At 
 least they do, I do not. I do not allow 
 that anybody dictates to me. They 
 talk of the triumph of the South over 
 the North ! There is not a word of truth 
 or reason in the whole of it. I am bound 
 to say on my conscience, that, of all the 
 evils inflicted upon us by these acquisi- 
 tions of slave territory, the North has 
 borne its full part in the infliotioi) 
 
SrEECII AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 683 
 
 Norlliern votes, in full proportion, have 
 been given in both houses for the ac- 
 quisition of new territory, in wliich 
 slavery existed. We talk of the North. 
 There has for a long time been no North. 
 I think the North Star is at last discov- 
 ered ; I think there will be a North ; but 
 up to the recent session of Congress 
 there h as been no North no geographi- 
 cal section of the country, in which 
 tliere has been found a strong, conscien- 
 tious, and united opposition to slavery. 
 No such North has existed. 
 Pope says, you know, 
 
 " Ask where 's the North ? At York, 'tis on the 
 Tweed ; 
 In Scotland, at the Orcades; and there, 
 At Greenland, Zenibla, or the Lord knows 
 wliere." 
 
 Now, if there has heretofore been 
 such a North as I have described, a 
 North strong in opinion and united in 
 action against slavery, — if such a North 
 has existed anywhere, it has existed 
 "the Lord knows where," I do not. 
 "\^^^y, on this very question of the ad- 
 mission of Texas, it may be said with 
 truth, that the North let in Texas. 
 The ^^^ligs, North and South, resisted 
 Texas. Ten Senators from slave-hold- 
 ing States, of the Whig party, resisted 
 Texas. Two, only, as I remember, 
 voted for it. But the Southern Whig 
 votes against Texas were overpowered 
 by the Democratic votes from the Free 
 States, and from, New England among 
 the rest. Yes, if there had not been 
 votes from New England in favor of 
 Texas, Texas would have been out of 
 the Union to this day. Yes, if men 
 from New England had been true, Texas 
 would have been nothing but Texas still. 
 There were four votes in the Senate 
 from New England in favor of the ad- 
 mission of Texas, Mr. Van Bureu's 
 friends, Democratic members : one from 
 ^Maine; two from New Hampshire; one 
 from Connecticut. Two of these gen- 
 tlemen were confidential friends of Mr. 
 Van Buren, and had both been mem- 
 bers of his cabinet. They voted for 
 Texas; and they let in Texas, against 
 Southern AVhigs and Northern Whigs. 
 That is the ti'uth of it, my friends. Mr. 
 
 Van Buren, by the wave of his hand, 
 could have kept out Texas. A word, a 
 letter, though it had been even shorter 
 than General Cass's letter to the Chicago 
 Convention, would have been enough, 
 and would have done the work. But 
 he was silent. 
 
 When Northern members of Congress 
 voted, in 1820, for the Missouri Compro- 
 mise, against the known will of their 
 constituents, they were called " Dough 
 Faces." I am afraid, fellow-citizens, 
 that the generation of " dough faces" 
 will be as perpetual as the generation of 
 men. 
 
 In 1844, as we all know, Mr. Van 
 Buren was a candidate for the Presi- 
 dency, on the part of the Democratic 
 party, but lost the nomination at Balti- 
 more. We now learn, from a letter from 
 General Jackson to jNIt. Butler, that ]Mr. 
 Van Buren's claims were superseded, 
 because, after all, the South thought 
 that the accomplishment of the annexa- 
 tion of Texas might be more safely in- 
 trusted to Southern hands. We all 
 know that the Northern portion of the 
 Democratic party were friendly to Mr. 
 Van Buren. Our neighbors fi-om New 
 Hampshire, and Elaine, and elsewhere, 
 were Van Buren men. But the moment 
 it was ascertained that Mr. Polk was the 
 favorite of the South, and the favorite 
 of the South \ipon the ground I have 
 mentioned, as a man more certain to 
 bring about the annexation of Texas 
 than ]\Ir. Van Buren, these friends of 
 Mr. Van Buren in the North all " caved 
 in," — not a man of them stood. Mr. 
 Van Buren himself wrote a letter very 
 complimentary to i\Ir. Polk and ]\Ir. 
 Dallas, and found no fault with the 
 nomination. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, if they were "dough 
 faces " who voted for the ^Missouri Com- 
 promise, what epithet should describe 
 these men, here in our New England, 
 who were so ready, not only to change 
 or abandon him whom they most cor- 
 dially wished to support, but did so in 
 order to make more sure the annexation 
 of Texas. They nominated Mr. Polk 
 at the request of gentlemen irom the 
 South, and voted for him, through 
 
5»4 
 
 SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 thick and thin, till the work was ac- 
 complished, and Mr. Polk elected. For 
 my part, I think that "dough faces" 
 is an epithet not sufficiently reproach- 
 ful. Such persons are dough faces, 
 with dough heads, and dough hearts, 
 and dough souls; they are all dough; 
 the coarsest potter may mould them to 
 vessels of honor or dishonor, — most 
 readily to vessels of r//.shonor. 
 
 But what do we now see? Repent- 
 ance has gone far. There are among 
 these very people, these verj- gentlemen, 
 persons who espouse, with great zeal, 
 the interests of the Free Soil party. I 
 hope their repentance is as sincere as it 
 appears to be. I hope it is honest con- 
 viction, and not merely a new chance 
 for power, xmder a new name and a new 
 party. But, with all their pretensions, 
 and with all their patriotism, I see 
 dough still sticking on the cheeks of 
 some of them. And therefore I have 
 no confidence in them, not a particle. 
 I do not mean to say, that the great 
 mass of the people, especially those who 
 went to the Buffalo Convention from 
 this State, have not the highest and 
 purest motives. I think they act un- 
 wisely, but I acquit them of dishonest 
 intentions. But with respect to others, 
 and those who have been part and par- 
 cel in the measures which have brought 
 new slave territory into this Union, I 
 distrust them all. If they repent, let 
 them, before we trust them, do works 
 worthy of repentance. 
 
 I have said, Gentlemen, that in my 
 opinion, if it were desirable to place 
 iMr. Van Buren at the head of govern- 
 ment, there is no chance for him. 
 Others are as good judges as I am. 
 But I am not able to say that I see any 
 .State in the Union in which there is a 
 reasonable probability that he will get 
 tlie vote. There may be. Others are 
 more versed in such statistics than I am. 
 But I see none, and therefore I think 
 that we are reduced to a choice between 
 General Cass and General Taylor. You 
 may remember, that in the discussions 
 of 18 H, when Mr. Birney was drawuig 
 off votes from the Whig canditlate, 1 
 said that every voU; for Mr. Birney 
 
 was half a vote for Mr. T'jlk. Is it 
 not true that the vote of the Liber- 
 ty party taken from ^Ir. Clay's vote 
 in the State of Xew York made Mr. 
 Polk President? That is as clear as atiy 
 historical fact. And in my judgment, 
 it will be so now. I consider every 
 "Wliig vote given to !Mr. Van Buren, as 
 directly aiding the election of Mr. Cass. 
 Mark, I say, Tr///<7 vote. There may be 
 States in which Mr. Van Buren may 
 draw from the other side largely. But 
 I speak of Whig votes, in this State and 
 in any State. And I am of opinion, that 
 any such vote given to Mr. Van Buren 
 inures to the benefit of General Cass. 
 
 Now as to General Cass, Gentlemen. 
 We need not go to the Baltimore plat- 
 form to instruct ourselves as to what his 
 politics are, or how he will conduct the 
 government. General Cass will go into 
 the government, if at all, chosen by the 
 same party that elected Mr. Polk ; and 
 he will "follow in the footsteps of his 
 illustrious predecessor." I hold him, I 
 confess, in the present state of the coun- 
 try, to be the most dangerous man on 
 whom the powers of the executive chief 
 magistracy could well be conferred. He 
 would consider himself, not as conser- 
 vative, not as protective to present insti- 
 tutions, but as belonging to the party 
 of Progress. lie believes in the doc- 
 trine of American destiny ; and that 
 that destiny is, to go through wars and 
 invasions, and maintain vast armies, to 
 establish a great, powerful, domineering 
 government over all this continent. We 
 know that, if ^Ir. Cass could have pre- 
 vented it, the treaty with England in 
 1842 would not have been made. We 
 know that, if Mr. Cass could have pre- 
 vented it, the settlement of the Oregon 
 question would not have been accom- 
 plished in 1846. We know that General 
 Cass could have prevented the ^Mexican 
 war; and we know that he was first 
 and foremost in pressing that war. AVe 
 know tliat he is a man of talent, of 
 ability, of some celebrity as a states- 
 man, in every way superior to his pre- 
 decessor, if he should be the successor 
 of Mr. Polk. But I think him a man of 
 ra.sh politics, pushed on by a rash party, 
 
SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 585 
 
 L 
 
 and committed to a course of policy, as 
 1 believe, not in consistency with the 
 happiness and security of the country. 
 Therefore it is for you, and for me, and 
 for all of us, AVliigs, to consider -wheth- 
 er, in this state of the case, we can or 
 cannot, we will or will not, give our 
 votes for the "Whig nomination. I leave 
 that to every man's conscience. I have 
 endeavored to state the case as it pre- 
 sents itself to me. 
 
 Gentlemen, before General Taylor's 
 nomination, I stated always, when the 
 subject was mentioned by my friends, 
 that I did not and could not reconinieiid 
 the nomination of a military man to 
 the people of the United States for the 
 office of President. It was against my 
 conviction of what was due to the best 
 interests of the countrj', and to the char- 
 acter of the republic. I stated always, 
 at the same time, that if General Taylor 
 should be nominated by the Whig Con- 
 vention, fairly, I should not oppose his 
 election. I stand now upon the same 
 declaration. General Taylor has been 
 nominated fairly, as far as I know, and 
 I cannot, therefore, and shall not, op- 
 pose his election. At the same time, 
 there is no man who is more firmly of 
 opinion that such a nomination was not 
 tit to be made. But the declaration that 
 I would not oppose General Taylor, if 
 nominated by the Whig party, was of 
 course subject, in the nature of things, 
 to some exceptions. K I believed him 
 to be a man who woiUd plunge the 
 counti-y into further wars for any pur- 
 pose of ambition or conquest, I would 
 oppose him, let him be nominated by 
 whom he might. If I believed that he 
 was a man who would exert his official 
 influence for the further extension of 
 the slave power, I would oppose him, 
 let him be nominated by whom he might. 
 But I do not believe either. I believe 
 that he has been, from the first, opposed 
 to the policy of the ^Mexican war, as im- 
 proper, impolitic, and inexpedient. I 
 believe, from the best information I can 
 obtain, — and you will take this as my 
 own opinion, Gentlemen, — 1 believe, 
 from the best information I can obtain, 
 that he has no disposition to go to war. 
 
 or to form new Slates in order to in 
 crease the limits of slaveiy. 
 
 Gentlemen, so much for what may be 
 considered as belonging to the Presi- 
 dency as a national question. But tne 
 case by no means stops here. We 
 are citizens of ]\Iassachusetts. "We are 
 Whigs of Massachusetts. We have sup- 
 ported the present government of the 
 State for years, with success: and I have 
 thought that most Whigs were satis- 
 fied with the administration of the State 
 frovernment in the liands of those who 
 have had it. But now it is proposed, I 
 presume, on the basis of the Buffalo 
 Platform, to carry this into the State 
 elections, as well as into the national 
 elections. There is to be a nomination 
 of a candidate for Governor, against 
 Mr. Briggs, or whoever may be nomi- 
 nated by the Whigs ; and there is to be 
 a nomination of a candidate for Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor, against Mr. Reed, or 
 whoever may be nominated by the "WTiigs ; 
 and there are to be nominations against 
 the present members of Congress. Now, 
 what is the utility or the necessity of 
 this? We have ten members in the 
 Consress of the United States. I know 
 not ten men of any party who are more 
 zealous, and firm, and inflexible in their 
 opposition against slavery in any form. 
 
 And what will be the result of oppos- 
 ing their re-election? Suppose that a 
 considerable number of Whigs secede 
 from the "\^'^lig party, and support a 
 candidate of this new party, what will 
 be the result? Do we not know what 
 lias been the case in this State? Do we 
 not know that this district has been un- 
 represented from month to month, and 
 from year to year, because there has been 
 an opposition to as good an antislaveiy 
 man as breathes the air of this district? 
 On this occasion, and even in his own 
 presence, I may allude to our Represent- 
 ative, Mr. Hale. Do we want a man 
 to give a better vote in Congress than 
 iMr. Hale gives? AVhy, I undertake to 
 say that there is not one of the Liberty 
 party, nor will there be one of this new 
 party, who will have the least objection 
 to Mr. Hale, except that he was not 
 nominated by themselves Ten to one, 
 
586 
 
 SrEFXn AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 if the "UTiigs had not nominated him, 
 they would have nominated him them- 
 selves ; doulitless they would, if he had 
 come into their organization, and called 
 himself a third party man. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, I remember it to 
 have occurred, that, on very important 
 questions in Congress, the vote was lost 
 for want of two or three members which 
 Massachusetts might have sent, but 
 which, in consequence of the division 
 of parties, she did not send. And now 
 I foresee that, if in this district any con- 
 siderable number of Whigs think it their 
 duty to join in the support of Mr. Van 
 Buren, and in the support of gentlemen 
 whom that party may nominate for Con- 
 gress, the same thing w'ill take place, 
 and we shall be without a representa- 
 tive, in all probability, in the first ses- 
 sion of the next Congi'ess, when the 
 battle is to be fought on this very sla- 
 very question. The same is likely to 
 haj^pen in other districts. I am sure 
 that honest, intelligent, and patriotic 
 "\^'^^igs will lay this consideration to 
 their consciences, and judge of it as 
 they think they ought to do. 
 
 Gentlemen, I will detain you but a 
 moment longer. You know that I gave 
 my vote in Congress against the treaty 
 of peace with Mexico, because it con- 
 tained these cessions of territory, and 
 brought under the authority of the 
 United States, with a pledge of future 
 admission into the Union, the great, 
 vast, and almost iniknown countries of 
 New Mexico and California. 
 
 In the session before the last, one of the 
 Southern Whig Senators, ]Mr. Berrien of 
 Georgia, had moved a resolution, to the 
 effect that the war ought not to be con- 
 tinued for the purposes of conquest and 
 acquisition. The resolution declared that 
 the war with Mexico ought not to be 
 prosecuted by this government with any 
 view to tlie dismemberment of that re- 
 public, or to the acquisition, by con- 
 quest, of any portion of her territoiy. 
 That proposition he introduced into the 
 Senate, in the form of a resolution; and 
 I believe that every Whig Senator but 
 one voted for it. But the Senators be- 
 longing to the I ocofoco or Democratic 
 
 party voted against it Tlie SenAtora 
 from Xew York voted against it. Gen- 
 eral Cass, from the free State of Mich- 
 igan, Mr. Fairfield, from ^Maine, Mr 
 Niles, from Connecticut, and others, 
 voted against it, and the vote was lost. 
 Tliat is, these gentlemen, — some of 
 them very prominent friends of Mr. Van 
 Buren, and ready to take the field for 
 him, — these veiy gentlemen voted not 
 to exclude territory that might be ob- 
 tained by conquest. They were willing 
 to bring in the territoiT, and then have 
 a squall] )le and controversy whether it 
 should be slave or free territory. I was 
 of opinion that the true and safe policy 
 was, to shut out the whole question by 
 getting no territoiy, and thereby keep 
 off all controversy. The territoiy will 
 do us no good, if free; it will be an en- 
 cumbrance, if free. To a great extent, 
 it will produce a preponderance in favor 
 of the South in the Senate, even if it be 
 free. Let us keep it out, therefore. But 
 no. We will make the acquisition, bring 
 in the territoiy, and manage it after- 
 wards. That was the policy. 
 
 Gentlemen, in an important crisis m 
 English history, in the reign of Charl&s 
 the Second, when the countiy was threat- 
 ened by the accession to the throne of a 
 prince, then called the Duke of York, 
 who was a bigot to the Roman Catholic 
 religion, a proposition was made to ex- 
 clude him from the crown. Some said 
 that was a very rash measure, brought 
 forward by very rash men; that they 
 had better admit him, and then put lim- 
 itations upon him, chain him down, re- 
 strict him. When the debate was going 
 on, a member is reported to have risen 
 and expressed his sentiments by rather 
 a grotesque comparison, but one of con- 
 siderable force : — 
 
 " I hear a lion, in the lobby roar! 
 Say, ^Ir. Speaker, shall we ."shut the door. 
 And keep him out; or shall we let him iu, 
 And see if we can get him out again V " 
 
 I was for shtitting the door and keep- 
 ing tlie lion out. Other more confident 
 spirits, who are of the character of Van 
 Amburgh, were for letting him in, and 
 disturbing all the interests of the coun- 
 tr}-. "NMien this Mexican treaty came 
 
SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 587 
 
 L 
 
 before the Senate, it had certain clauses 
 ceding New Mexico and California to 
 the United States. A Southern gentle- 
 man, ]\[r. Badger, of North Carolina, 
 moved to strike out those clauses. Now 
 you understand, that if a motion to 
 strike out a clause of a treaty be sup- 
 ported by one third, it will be struck 
 out; that is, two thirds of the Senate 
 must vote for each clause, in order to 
 have it retained. The vote on this ques- 
 tion of striking out stood 38 to 14, not 
 quite one third being against the ces- 
 sion, and so the clause was retained. 
 And why were there not one third? Just 
 because there were four New England 
 Senators voting for these new territo- 
 ries. That is the reason. 
 
 I hope I am as ardent an advocate for 
 peace as any man living; but I would 
 not be carried away by the desire for 
 peace to commit an act which I believed 
 highly injurious, likely to have conse- 
 quences of a permanent character, and 
 indeed to endanger the existence of the 
 government. Besides, I believed that 
 we could have struck out the cessions of 
 territory, and had peace just as soon. 
 And I would be willing to go before the 
 people and leave it to them to say, 
 whether they would carry on the war 
 any longer for acquisition of territory. 
 If they would, then they were the artifi- 
 cers of their own fortunes. I was not 
 afraid of the people on that subject. But 
 if this course had continued the war 
 somewhat longer, I would have preferred 
 that result, rather than that those ter- 
 ritories lying on our southern border 
 should come in hereafter as new States. 
 I should speak, perhaps, with more con- 
 fidence, if some Whigs of the North had 
 not voted for the treaty. !My own opin- 
 ion was then clear and decisive. For 
 myself I thought the case a perfectly 
 plain one, and no man has yet stated a 
 reason to convince me to the contraiy. 
 
 I voted to strike out the articles of 
 cession. They would have been struck 
 out if four of the New England Senators 
 had not voted against the motion. I 
 then voted against the ratification of 
 the treaty, and that treaty would have 
 failed if three New England Senators 
 
 had not voted for it, and "V^liig Senators 
 too. I should do the same thing again, 
 and with much more resolution. I woidd 
 have run a still greater risk, I would 
 have endured a still greater shock, I 
 would have risked any thing, rather than 
 have been a participator in any measui'e 
 which should have a tendency to annex 
 Southern territory to the States of the 
 Union. I hope it will be remembered, 
 in all future time, that on this question 
 of the accession of these new territorieH 
 of almost boundless extent, I voted 
 against them, and against the treaty 
 which contained them, notwithstanding 
 all inducements to the contrary, and all 
 the cries, which I thought hasty and 
 injudicious, of "Peace! Peace on any 
 terms!" I will add, that those who 
 voted against the treaty were gentlemen 
 from so many parts of the country, that 
 its rejection would have been an act 
 rather of national than of local resist- 
 ance. There were votes against it from 
 both parties, and from all parties, the 
 South and the West, the Noi'th and the 
 East. AVhat we wanted was a few more 
 New England votes. 
 
 Gentlemen, after I had the honor of 
 receiving the invitation to meet my fel- 
 low-citizens, I found it necessary, in the 
 discharge of my duty, though with great 
 inconvenience to my health, to be present 
 at the closing scenes of the session. You 
 know what there transpired. You know 
 the important decision that was made in 
 both houses of Congress, in regard to 
 Oregon. The immediate question re- 
 spected Oregon, or rather the bill re- 
 spected Oregon, but the question more 
 particularly concerned these new terri- 
 tories. The effect of the bill as passed 
 in the Senate was to establish these new 
 territories as slave-holding States. The 
 House disagreed. The Senate receded 
 from their ground, and the bill passed, 
 establishing Oregon as a free Territoiy, 
 and making no provision for the newly 
 acquired territories on the South. ^Nly 
 vote, and the reasons I gave for it, are 
 known to the good people of Massachu- 
 setts, and I have not heard that they 
 have expressed any particular disappro- 
 bation of them. 
 
588 
 
 SPEECH AT MARSIIFIELD. 
 
 But this question is to be resumed at 
 the first session of the next Congress. 
 There is no probability that it will be 
 settled at the next session of this Con- 
 gress. But at least at the first session 
 of the next Congress this question will 
 be resumed. It will enter at this very 
 period into all the elections of the South. 
 
 And now I venture to say, Gentle- 
 men, two things; the first well-known 
 to you, that General Cass is in favor 
 of what is called the Compromise Line, 
 and is of opinion that the Wilmot Pro- 
 viso, or the Ordinance of 1787, which 
 excludes slavery from territories, ought 
 not to be applied to territories lying 
 south of 36° 30'. He announced this 
 before he was nominated, and if he had 
 not announced it, he would have been 
 36° 3(y farther off from being nominated. 
 In the next place, he will do all he can 
 to establish that compromise line ; and 
 lastly, which is a matter of opinion, in my 
 conscientious belief he will establish it. 
 
 Give him the power and the patronage 
 of the government, let him exercise it 
 over certain portions of the country 
 whose representatives voted on this occa- 
 sion to put off that question for future 
 consideration; let him have the power 
 of this government with his attachments, 
 with his inducements, and we shall see 
 the result. I verily believe, that unless 
 there is a renewed strengtii, an aug- 
 mented strength, of Whig votes in Con- 
 gress, he will accomplish his purpose. 
 He will surely have the Senate, and with 
 the patronage of the government, with 
 every interest which he can bring to 
 bear, co-operating with every interest 
 which the South can bring to bear, he 
 will establish the compromise line. ^Ve 
 
 cry safety before we are out fif the woods, 
 if we feel that the danger respecting the 
 territories is over. 
 
 Gentlemen, I came here to confer with 
 you as friends and countrymen, to speak 
 my own mind and hear yours; but if we 
 all should speak, and occupy as much 
 time as I have, we should make a late 
 meeting. I shall detain you no longer. 
 I have been long in public life, longer, 
 far longer than I shall remain there. I 
 have had some participation for more 
 than thirty years in the councils of the 
 nation. I profess to feel a strong attach- 
 ment to the liberty of the United States, 
 to the Constitution and free institutions 
 of this country, to the honor, and I may 
 say the glory, of my native land. I feel 
 every injury inflicted upon it, almost as 
 a personal injury. I blush for every 
 fault which I think I see committed in 
 its public councils, as if they were faults 
 or mistakes of my own. I know that, 
 at this moment, there is no object upon 
 earth so much attracting the gaze of the 
 intelligent and civilized nations of the 
 eartli as this great republic. All men 
 look at us, all men examine our course, 
 all good men are anxious for a favorable 
 result to this great experiment of repub- 
 lican liberty. "We are on a hill and can- 
 not be hid. We cannot withdraw our- 
 selves either from the commendation or 
 the reproaches of the civilized world. 
 They see us as that star of empire which 
 half a century ago was represented as 
 making its way westward. I wi.-ih they 
 may see it as a mild, placid, though 
 brilliant orb, moving athwart the whole 
 heavens to tlie enlightening and cheer- 
 ing of mankind; and not as a meteor of 
 file and blood terrif-^ iug the nations. 
 
JEREMIAH MASON. 
 
 [TnE death of the Hon. Jeremiah Mason, 
 one of the most eminent members of the 
 legal profession in the United States, took 
 place at Boston, on the 14th of October, 
 184S. At a meeting of the Bar of the 
 County of Suffolk, Mass., held on the 17th 
 instant, ajjpropriate resolutions in honor of 
 the deceased, accompanied with a few elo- 
 quent observations, were introduced by Mr. 
 Chtate, and unanimously adojjted. It was 
 voted by the meeting, that Mr. Webster 
 shoidd be requested to present these reso- 
 lutions to tiie Supreme Judicial Court at its 
 next term in Boston. 
 
 In compliance with tliis request, at the 
 opening of the next term of the court, on 
 the 14th of November, 1848, prayer having 
 been offered, Air. Webster rose and spoke 
 as follows.] 
 
 May it please your Honors, — Jeuk- 
 Mr.\H Mason, one of the counsellors of 
 this court, departed this life on the 14th 
 of October, at his residence in this city. 
 The death of one of its members, so 
 highly respected, so much admired and 
 venerated, could not fail to produce a 
 striking impression upon the members 
 of this bar; and a meeting was imme- 
 diately called, at which a member of this 
 court, just on the eve of leaving the 
 practice of his profession for a seat ou 
 the bench, ^ presided; and resolutions 
 expressive of the sense entertained by 
 the bar of the high character of the de- 
 ceased, and of sincere condolence with 
 those whom his loss touched more nearly, 
 were moved by one of his distinguished 
 brethren, and adopted with entire una- 
 nimity. My brethren have appointed 
 me to the honorable duty of presenting 
 these resolutions to this court ; and it is 
 in discharge of that duty that I rise to 
 address you, and pray that the resolu- 
 tions which I hold in my hand may be 
 read by the clerk. 
 
 * Mr. Justice Richard Fletcher. 
 
 The clerk of the court then read th« 
 resolutions, as follows: — 
 
 " Resolved, That the members of this oar 
 have heard with profound emotion of the 
 decease of the Honorable Jeremiah Ma- 
 son, one of the most eminent and distin- 
 guished of the great men who have ever 
 adorned this profession ; and, as well in 
 discharge of a public duty, as in obedience 
 to the dictates of our private feelings, 
 we think it proper to mark this occasion 
 by some attempt to record our estimate 
 of liis pre-eminent abilities and high char- 
 acter. 
 
 " Resolved, That the public character and 
 services of Mr. Mason demand prominent 
 commemoration; that, throughout his long 
 life, whether as a private person or in i)ub- 
 lic place, he maintained a wide and various 
 intercourse with public men, and cherislied 
 a constant and deep interest in public 
 affairs, and by his vast practical wisdom 
 and sagacity, the fruit of extraordinary in- 
 tellectual endowments, matured thought, 
 and profound observation, and by the sound 
 ness of his opinions and the comprehensive- 
 ness and elevated tone of his politics, he 
 exerted at all times a great and most salu- 
 tary influence upon the sentiments and pol- 
 icy of the community and the country ; and 
 that, as a Senator in the Congress of the 
 United States during a period of many 
 years, and in a crisis of affairs which de- 
 manded the wisdom of the wisest and the 
 civil virtues of the best, he was distin- 
 guished among the most eminent men of 
 his country for ability in debate, for atten- 
 tion to all the duties of his great trust, for 
 moderation, for prudence, for fidelity to the 
 obligations of tliat party connection to 
 which he was attached, for fidelity still 
 more conspicuous and still more ailiniralde 
 to the higher obligations of a thoughtful 
 and enlarged patriotism. 
 
 " Resolved, Tliat it was the privilege of 
 Mr. Mason to come to the bar when the 
 jurisprudence of New England was yet in 
 
 k 
 
590 
 
 JEREMIAH MASON. 
 
 its infancy; that he brouglit to its cultiva- 
 tion great general ability, and a practical 
 sagacit}', logical power, and patient re- 
 searcii, — constituting altogether a legal 
 genius, rarely if ever surpassed ; that it was 
 greatly through his influence that the grow- 
 ing wants of a prosperous State were met 
 and satisfied by a system of common law 
 at once flexible and certain, deduced by the 
 highest human wisdom from the actual 
 wanlo of the comnmnity, logically correct, 
 and practically useful ; that in the fact that 
 the State of New Hampshire now possesses 
 such a system of law, whose gladsome light 
 has shone on other States, are seen both 
 the product and the monument of his labors, 
 less conspicuous, but not less real, than if 
 embodied in codes and institutes bearing 
 ills name ; yet that, bred as he was to the 
 common law, his great powers, ojjeiied and 
 liberalized by its study and practice, en- 
 abled him to grasp readily, and wield with 
 entire ease, those systems of equity, appli- 
 cable to the transactions of the land or the 
 sea, which, in recent times, have so much 
 meliorated and improved the administra- 
 "ion of justice in our country. 
 
 " Resolved, That as respects his practice 
 as a counsellor and advocate at this bar, 
 we would record our sense of his integrity, 
 prudence, fidelity, dei)th of learning, knowl- 
 edge of men and affairs, and great powers 
 of persuading kindred minds; and we know 
 well, that, when he died, there was extin- 
 guished one of the few great lights of the 
 old common law. 
 
 " Resolved, That Mr. Webster be request- 
 ed to present these resolutions to the Su- 
 preme Judicial Court, at its next term, in 
 Boston ; and the District Attorne\' of the 
 United States be requested to present them 
 to the Circuit Court of the United States 
 now in session. 
 
 " Resolved, That the Secretary communi- 
 cate to the family of Mr. Mason a copy of 
 these resolutions, together with the respect- 
 ful sympathy of the bar." 
 
 The proprieties of this occasion (con- 
 tinued Mr. Webster) compel me, with 
 whatever reluctance, to refrain from the 
 indulgence of the personal feelings which 
 arise ii\ my heart, upon the death of 
 one with whom I have cultivated a sin- 
 cere, att'ectioiiate, and unbroken friend- 
 ship, from the day when I commenced 
 my own professional career, to the clos- 
 ing hour of his life. I will not say, of 
 
 the advantages which I have derived 
 from his intercourse and conversation, 
 all that Mr. Fox said of Edmund Burke; 
 but I am bound to say, that of my own 
 professional discipline and attainments, 
 whatever they may be, I owe much to 
 tliat close attention to the discharge of 
 my duties which I was compelled to 
 pay, for nine successive years, from day 
 to day, by Mr. Mason's efforts and ar- 
 guments at the same bar. Fas est ab 
 hoste doceri ; and I must have been un- 
 intelligent, indeed, not to have learned 
 something from the constant displays of 
 that power which I had so much occa- 
 sion to see and to feel. 
 
 It is the more appropriate duty of tlie 
 present moment to give some short no- 
 tice of his life, character, and the quali- 
 ties of his mind and heart, so that he 
 may be presented as an example to those 
 who are entering upon or pursuing the 
 same career. Four or five years ago, 
 Mr. Mason drew up a biography of 
 himself, from the earliest period of his 
 recollection to the time of his removal 
 to Portsmouth, in 1797; which is inter- 
 esting, not only for the information it 
 gives of the mode in which tlie habits of 
 his life were formed, but also for the 
 manner of its composition. 
 
 He was born on the 27th day of April, 
 17G8, at Lebanon in Connecticut. His 
 remotest ancestor in this country was 
 Captain John Mason (an officer who 
 had served with distinction in the Neth- 
 erlands, under Sir Thomas Fairfax), 
 who came from England in 1630, and 
 settled at Dorchester in the Colon)' of 
 Massachusetts. His great-grandfather 
 lived at Haddam. His grandfather, 
 born in 1705, lived at Norwich, and 
 died in the year 1779. Mr. Mason 
 remembered him, and recollected his 
 character, as that of a respectable and 
 deeply religious man. His ancestor on 
 the maternal side was James Fitch, a 
 learned divine, who came from England 
 and settled in Saybrook, but removed 
 to Lebanon, where he died. A Latin 
 epitaph, in the ancient Inuying-ground 
 of that town, records his merits. One 
 of his descendants held a large tract of 
 land in the parish of Goshen, in the 
 
JEREMIAH MASON. 
 
 591 
 
 I 
 
 town of LeVaiion, by grant from the 
 Indians; one half of which, near a cen- 
 tury afterwards, was bequeathed to his 
 dauu'hter, Elizabeth Fitch, the mother 
 of Mr. Muson. To this property Mr. 
 Mason's father removed soon after his 
 marriajxe, and there he died, in 1813. 
 The title of this land was obtained from 
 Uncas, an Indian sachem in that neigh- 
 borhood, by the great-grandfather of 
 ilr. Mason's mother, and has never 
 been alienated from the family. It is 
 now owned by ^Ir. ]\Iason's nephew, 
 Jeremiah Mason, the son of his eldest 
 brother James. The family has been 
 distinguished for longevity; the average 
 ages of Mr. Mason's six immediate 
 ancestors liaving exceeded eighty-thiee 
 years each. Mr. Mason was the sixth 
 of nine children, all of whom are now 
 dead. 
 
 Mr. Mason's father was a man of in- 
 telligence and activity, of considerable 
 opulence, and highly esteemed by the 
 community. At the commencement of 
 the Revolutionary war, being a zealous 
 AVhig, he raised and commanded a com- 
 pany of minute-men, as they were called, 
 and marched to the siege of Boston. 
 Here he rendered important service, 
 being stationed at Dorchester Heights, . 
 and engaged in fortifying that position. 
 In the autumn of that year, he w'as pro- 
 moted to a colonelcy, and joined the 
 army with his regiment, in the neigh- 
 borhood of New York. At the end of 
 the campaign, he returned home out of 
 health, but retained the connnand of his 
 regiment, which he rallied and brought 
 out with celerity and spirit when Gen- 
 eral Arnold assaulted and burned Xew 
 London. He became attached to mili- 
 tary life, and regretted that he had not 
 at an early day entered the Continental 
 service. Colonel Mason was a good 
 man, affectionate to his family, kind 
 and obliging to his neighbors, and faith- 
 ful in the observance of all moral and 
 religious duties. 
 
 Mr. Mason's mother was distinguished 
 for a good understanding, much discre- 
 tion, the purity of her heart and affec- 
 tions, and the exemplary kindness and 
 benevolence of her life It was her 
 
 great anxiety to give all her children 
 the best education, within the means of 
 the family, which the state of the coun- 
 try would allow; and she was particu- 
 larly desirous that Jeremiah should be 
 sent to college. " In my recollection of 
 my mother," says Mr. Mason, "she 
 was the personification of love, kind- 
 ness, and benevolence." 
 
 Destined for an education and for 
 professional life, Mr. Mason was sent 
 to Yale College, at sixteen years of age; 
 his preparatory studies having been pur- 
 sued under " blaster Tlsdale," who had 
 then been forty years at the head of a 
 school in Lebanon, which had become 
 distinguished, and among the scholars 
 of which were the Wheelocks, after- 
 wards Presidents of Dartmouth College. 
 He w-as gi-aduated in ITSi, and per- 
 formed a part in the Commencement 
 exercises, which greatly raised the ex- 
 pectation of his friends, and gratified 
 and animated his love for distinction. 
 " In the course of a long and active 
 life," says he, " I recollect no occasion 
 when I have experienced such elevation 
 of feelinsr." This was the effect of that 
 spirit of emulation which incited the 
 whole course of his life of usefulness. 
 There is now prevalent among us a 
 morbid and sickly notion, that emu- 
 lation, even as honorable rivalry, is a 
 debasing passion, and not to be encour- 
 aged. It supposes that the mind should 
 be left without such excitement, in a 
 dreamy and undisturbed state, flowing 
 or not flowing, according to its own im- 
 pulse, without such aids as are furnished 
 by the rivalrj^of one with another. For 
 one, I do not believe in this. I hold to 
 the doctrine of the old school, as to this 
 part of education. Quinctilian says: 
 " Sunt quidam, nisi institeris, remissi; 
 quidam imperio indignantur; quosdam 
 continet metus, quosdam debilitat: alioa 
 continuatio extundit, in aliis plus im- 
 petus facit. ilihi ille detur puer, quem 
 laus excitet, quem gloria juvet, qui 
 victus fleat; hie erit alendus ambitu, 
 hunc mordebit objurgatio, hunc honor 
 excitabit; in hoc desidiam nunquam 
 verebor." I think this is sound seusa 
 and just feeling. 
 
692 
 
 JEHEML\n MASON. 
 
 Mr. ^lason was destined for the law, 
 and commenced the stud}' of that pro- 
 fession with Mr. Baldwin, a gentleman 
 who has lived to perform important 
 public and private duties, has sei-ved 
 his country in Congress, and on the 
 bench of the Supreme Court of Connect- 
 icut, and still lives to hear the account 
 of the peaceful death of his distinguished 
 pupil. After a year, he went to Ver- 
 mont, in whose recently established tri- 
 bunals he expected to find a new sphere 
 for the gratification of ambition, and 
 the employment of talents. He studied 
 in the office of Stephen Howe Bradley, 
 afterwards a Senator in Congress; and 
 was admitted to the bar, in Ver- 
 mont and Xew Hampshire, in the year 
 1791. 
 
 He began his career in Westmoreland, 
 a few miles below Walpole, at the age 
 of twenty-three; but in 179i, three years 
 afterwards, removed to AValpole, as be- 
 ing a larger village, where there was 
 more society and more business. There 
 w<is at that time on the Connecticut 
 lliver a rather unusual number of gen- 
 tlemen, distinguished for polite accom- 
 plishments and correct tastes in litera- 
 ture, and among them some well known 
 to tlie public as respectable writers and 
 authors. Among these were Mr. Ben- 
 jamin West, ^Ir. Dennie, Mr. Royall 
 Tyler, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Samuel Hunt, 
 Mr. J. W. Blake, Mr. Colman (who es- 
 tablished, and for a long time edited, 
 the "Xew York Evening Post"), and 
 All'. Olcott. In the association with 
 these gentlemen, and those like them, 
 Mr. !Mason found an agreeable j^wsition, 
 and cultivated tastes and habits of the 
 highest character. 
 
 About this period, he made a journey 
 to Virginia, on some business connected 
 with land titles, where he had much 
 intercourse with Major-General Henry 
 Lee; and, on his return, he saw Presi- 
 dent Wa.shington, at riiiladeljiliia, and 
 was greatly struck by the urbanity and 
 dignity of his manner. He heard Fisher 
 Ames make his celebrated speech upon 
 the British treaty. All that the world 
 has said with regard to the extraordi- 
 naiy effect produced by that speech, 
 
 and its wonderful excellence, is fully 
 confirmed by the opinion of ^Ir. Mason. 
 He speaks of it as one of the highest 
 exhibitions of popular oratory that hi 
 had ever witnessed ; popular, not in any 
 low sense, but popular as being addressed 
 to a popular body, and high in all the 
 qualities of sound reasoning and enlight- 
 ened eloquence. 
 
 Mr. ^lasou was inclined to exercise 
 his abilities in a larger sphere. He had 
 at this time made the acquaintance of 
 Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. 
 The former advised Mr. Mason to re- 
 move himself to Xew York. His own 
 preference was for Boston; but he 
 thought, that, filled as it then was 
 by distinguished professional ability, it 
 was too crowded to allow him a place. 
 I'hat was a mistake. On the contrary, 
 the bar of this city, witli the utmost 
 liberality and generosity of feeling and 
 sentiment, have always been ready to 
 receive, with open arms, every honor- 
 able acquisition to the dignity and use- 
 fulness of the profession, from other 
 States. Mr. Mason, however, removed 
 to Portsmouth in the autumn of 1797; 
 and, as was to be expected, his prac- 
 tice soon became extensive. lie was 
 appointed Attorney-General in 1S02. 
 About that time, the late learned and 
 lamented Chief Justice Smith retired 
 from his professioual duties, to take his 
 place as a judge; and Mr. !Mason be- 
 came the acknowledged head of his pro- 
 fession. He resigned the office of 
 Attorney-General, three or fom- yeais 
 afterwards, to the great regi'et of tlie 
 court, the bar, and the country. As a 
 prosecuting officer, he was com'teous, 
 inflexible, and just; carefid that the 
 guilty should not escape, and that the 
 honest should be protected. He was 
 impartial, almost judicial, in the ad- 
 ministration of his gi-eat office. He had 
 no morbid eagerness for conviction ; and 
 never permitted, as sometimes occurs, 
 an unworthy wrangling between the ol- 
 ficial power prosecuting, and the zeal of 
 the other party defending. His official 
 course produced exactly the ends it was 
 designed to do. The honest felt safe; 
 but there was a trembling and fear iu 
 
JEREMIAH MASON. 
 
 593 
 
 the evil disposed, that the transgi-essed 
 law would be vindicated. 
 
 Very much confined to his profession, 
 he never sought office or political eleva- 
 tion. Yet he held decided opinions 
 upon all political questions, and culti- 
 vated acquaintance with all the leading 
 subjects of the day; and no man was 
 more keenly alive than he to whatever 
 occurred, at home or abroad, involv- 
 ing the great interests of the civilized 
 world. 
 
 His political principles, opinions, 
 judgments, were framed upon those of 
 the men of the times of Washington. 
 From these, to the last, he never 
 swerved. The copy was well executed. 
 His conversation on subjects of state 
 was as instructive and interesting as 
 upon professional topics. He had the 
 same reach of thought, and exhibited 
 the same comprehensive mind, and sa- 
 gacity quick and far seeing, with regard 
 to political things and men, as he did 
 in professional affairs. His influence 
 was, therefore, haidly the less from the 
 fact that he was not actively engaged in 
 political life. There was an additional 
 weight given to his judgment, arising 
 from his being a disinterested beholder 
 only. The looker-on can sometimes 
 form a more independent and impartial 
 opinion of the course and results of the 
 contest, than those who are actually 
 engaged in it. 
 
 But at length, in June, 1813, he was 
 persuaded to accept the post of a Sena- 
 tor of tlie United States, and took his 
 seat that month. He was in Congress 
 during the sessions of 181.3 and 1814. 
 Those were very exciting times; party 
 spirit ran very high, and each party put 
 forward its most prominent and gifted 
 men. Both houses were filled by the 
 greatest intellects of the country. Mr. 
 Mason found himself by the side of 
 Rivfus King, Giles, Goldsborough, Gore, 
 Barbom', Daggett, Hunter, and other 
 distinguished public men. Among men 
 of whatever party, and however much 
 some of them differed from him in opin- 
 ion or political principle, there w'as not 
 one of them all but felt pleasure if he 
 spoke, and respected his uncommon 
 
 ability and probity, and his fair and up 
 riglit demeanor in his place and station. 
 He took at once his appropriate posi 
 tion. Of his associates and admirers 
 in the other house, there are some emi- 
 nent persons now living who were occa- 
 sional listeners to his speeches and 
 mucli struck with his ability; together 
 with Pickering, Benson, Pitkin, Stock- 
 ton, Lowndes, Gaston, and Hopkinson, 
 now all deceased, who used to Hock to 
 hear him, and always derived deep 
 gratification and instruction from hia 
 talents, character, and power. 
 
 He resigned his seat in the Senate in 
 1817. His published speeches are not 
 numerous. The reports of that day 
 were far less complete than now, and 
 comparatively few debates were pre- 
 served and revised. It was a remark- 
 al)le truth, that he always thouglit far 
 too lightly of himself and all his pro- 
 ductions. I know that he was with 
 difficulty persuaded to prepare his 
 speeches in Congress for publication; 
 and in this memorial of himself which 
 I have before me he says, with every 
 appearance and feeling of sincerity, 
 that he ' ' has never acted any important 
 part in life, but has felt a deep interes* 
 in the conduct of others." 
 
 His two main speeches were, first, on* 
 of great vigor, in the Senate, in Febru- 
 ary, 181-i, on the Embargo, just before 
 that policy was abandoned. The other 
 W'as later, in December, 1815, shortly 
 before the peace, on Mr. Giles's Con 
 scription Bill, in which he discussed the 
 subject of the enlistment of minors; and 
 the clause authorizing such enlistment 
 was struck out upon liis motion. 
 
 He was afterwards for several years a 
 member of the Xew Hampshire Legisla- 
 ture, and assisted in revising tlie code of 
 that State. He paid much attention to 
 the subject of the judicature, and per- 
 formed his services fully to the satisfac- 
 tion of the State; and the result of his 
 labors was warmly commended. In 
 1824 he was again a candidate for the 
 Senate of the United States. The elec- 
 tion was to be made by the concurrent 
 vote of the two branches of the Legisla- 
 ture. In the popular branch he was 
 
 38 
 
 k 
 
594 
 
 JEREMIAH MASON. 
 
 chosen by a strong vote. The Senate, 
 however, non-concurred; by which means 
 the eli.'ction was lost, — a loss to the coun- 
 try, not to him, — by force of circum- 
 stances and agencies not now or ever fit 
 to be recalled or remembered. 
 
 He continued to reside for many years 
 in Portsmouth: His residence in that 
 ancient town was a happy one. He was 
 happy in his family and in the society of 
 the town, surrounded by agreeable neigh- 
 bors, respected by the bar and the court, 
 and standing at the head of his profes- 
 sion. He had a great love of conver- 
 sation. He took pleasure in hearing 
 others talk, and gave an adiliUonal 
 charm by the freshness, agreeableuess, 
 and originality of his own observations. 
 His warm hospitality left him never 
 alone, and his usefulness was felt as 
 much within the walls of the homes, as 
 of the tribunals, of Portsmouth. Th<'re 
 are yet many in that town who love him 
 and his; many who witnessed, as chil- 
 dren, and recollect, the enthusiasm with 
 which he was greeted by their fathers 
 and mothers; and all in New Hampshire 
 old enough to remember liini will feel 
 what we feel here on this occasion. 
 
 Led at last partly by tlie desire of ex- 
 erting his abilities in a larger sphere of 
 usefulness, and partly by the fact of the 
 residence here of beloved domestic con- 
 nections, he came to this city, and en- 
 tered upon the performance of his pro- 
 fessional duties in 1832. Of the manner 
 in which he discharged those duties, this 
 court is the most competent judge. You, 
 Mr. Chief Justice, and the venerable a-s- 
 sociate who usually occupies a place at 
 your right,* have been witnesses of the 
 whole. You know the fidelity with 
 which he observed his duty to the court, 
 as well as his duty to his clients. In 
 learning, assiduity, respect for the bench, 
 uprightness, and integrity, he stood as an 
 example to the bar. You know the gen- 
 eral probity and talent with which he 
 jH'rformed, for so many years, the duty 
 of a counsellor of this court. 
 
 I should hardly trust myself to make 
 any analysis of Mr. Mason's mind. I 
 may be a partial judge. But I may 
 
 ' Mr. Justice Wilde. 
 
 speak of what I myself admire and 
 venerate. The characteristics of Mr. 
 ^lason's mind, as I think, were real 
 greatness, strength, and sagacity. He 
 was great through strong sense and sound 
 judgment, great by comprehensive views 
 of things, great by high and elevated 
 purposes. Perhaps sometimes he was 
 too cautious and refined, and his dis- 
 tinctions became too minute; but his 
 discrimination arose from a force of 
 intellect, and quick-seeing, far-reaching 
 sagacity, everywhere discerning his ob- 
 ject and pursuing it steadily. Whether 
 it was popular or professional, he grasped 
 a point and held it with a strong hand. 
 He was sarcastic sometimes, but not fre- 
 quently; not frothy or petulant, but cool 
 and vitriolic. Unfortunate for him on 
 whom his sarcasm fell 1 
 
 His conversation was as remarkable as 
 his efforts at the bar. It was original, 
 fresh, and suggestive; never dull or in- 
 different. He never talked when he had 
 nothing to say. He was particularly 
 agreeable, edifying, and instructive to 
 all about him; and this was the charm 
 of the social intercourse in which he was 
 connected. 
 
 As a professional man, ^Ir. Mason's 
 great ability lay in the department of 
 the common law. In this part of juris- 
 prudence he was profoundly learned. 
 He had drunk copiously from its deepest 
 springs; and he had studied with dili- 
 gence and success the departures from 
 the English common law which had 
 taken place in this country, either neces- 
 sarily, from difference of condition, or 
 positively, by force of our own statutes. 
 In his addresses, both to courts and 
 juries, he affected to despise all elo- 
 quence, and certainly disdained all or- 
 nament; but his efforts, whether ad- 
 dressed to one tribunal or the other, 
 were marked by a degree of clearness, 
 directness, and force not easy to be 
 equalled. There were no courts of 
 equity, as a separate and distinct juri.-?- 
 diction, in Xew Hampshire, during his 
 residence in that State. Yet the equity 
 treatises and equity reports were all in 
 his library', not "wisely ranged for 
 i show," but for constant and daily con- 
 
JEUEMIAII MASON. 
 
 595 
 
 sulfation; because he saw that tlie com- 
 iiiou hiw itself was growing every day 
 more and more liberal, that equity prin- 
 ciples were constantly forcing themselves 
 into its administration and within its 
 rules; that the subjects of litigation in 
 the courts were constantly becoming, 
 more and more, such as escaped from the 
 technicalities and the trammels of the 
 sommon law, and offered themselves for 
 discussion and decision on the broader 
 principles of general jurisprudence. ]Mr. 
 Mason, like other accomplished lawj^ers, 
 and more than most, admired the search- 
 ing scrutiny and the high morality of a 
 coiu-t of equity ; and felt the instruction 
 and edification resulting from the peru- 
 sal of the judgments of Lord Ilardwicke, 
 Lord Eldon, and Sir William Grant, as 
 •well as of those of great names in our 
 own country, not now among the living. 
 
 Among his early associates in New 
 Hampshire, there were many distin- 
 guished men. Of those now dead were 
 All'. West, Mr. Gordon, Edward St. Loe 
 Livermore, Peleg Sprague, William K. 
 Atkinson, George Sullivan, Thomas W. 
 Thompson, and Amos Kent; the last of 
 these having been always a particular 
 personal friend. All of these gentlemen 
 in their day held high and respectable 
 stations, and were eminent as lawyers 
 of probity and character. 
 
 Another contemporary and friend of 
 Mr. Mason was Mr. Timothy Bigelow, a 
 lawyer of reputation, a man of probity 
 and honor, attractive by his conversa- 
 tion, and highly agTeeable in his social 
 intercoui'se. Mr. Bigelow, we all know, 
 was of this State, in which he filled high 
 offices with great credit; but, as a coun- 
 BeUor and advocate, he was constant in 
 his attendance on the Xew Hampshire 
 courts. Having known IVIi-. Bigelow from 
 my early youth, I have pleasure in recall- 
 ing the mutual regard and friendship 
 which I know to have subsisted between 
 him and the subject of these remarks. 
 I ought not to omit Mr. Wilson and Mr. 
 Betton, in mentioning jNIr. Mason's con- 
 temporaries at the bar. They were near 
 hir own age, and both well known as 
 lawyers and public men. 
 
 Afr. Mason, while yet in New Hamp- 
 
 shire, found himself engaged in causes 
 in which that illustrious man, Samuel 
 Dexter, also appeared. The late Mr. 
 Justice Story was still more frequently 
 at the bar of that State; and, at a period 
 somewhat earlier, your great and distin- 
 guished predecessor. Chief Justice Par- 
 sons, occasionally presented himself be- 
 fore the courts at Portsmouth or Exeter, 
 and he is known to have entertained a 
 very high regard, personal and profes- 
 sional, as well for Mr. Mason as for the 
 late Chief Justice Smith. 
 
 Among those still living, -with whom 
 INIr. Alason was on terms of intimacy, 
 and with whom he associated at the bar, 
 were Messrs. Plumer, Arthur Livermore, 
 Samuel Bell, and Charles H. Atherton. 
 If these respected men could be here to- 
 day, every one of them would unite wdth 
 us in our tribute of love and veneration 
 to his memory. 
 
 But, Sir, political eminence and pro- 
 fessional fame fade away and die with 
 all things earthly. Nothing of character 
 is really permanent but virtue and per- 
 sonal worth. These remain. Whatever 
 of excellence is wrought into the soul 
 itself belongs to both worlds. Real 
 goodness does not attach itself merely 
 to this life; it points to another world. 
 Political or professional I'eputation can- 
 not last for ever ; but a conscience void 
 of offence before God and man is an in- 
 heritance for eternity. Relif/ion, there- 
 fore, is a necessary and indispensable 
 element in any great human character. 
 There is no living without it. Peligiou 
 is the tie that connects man with his 
 Creator, and holds him to his throne. 
 If that tie be all sundered, all broken, 
 he floats away, a worthless atom in the 
 universe ; its proper attractions all gone, 
 its destiny thwarted, and its whole fu- 
 ture nothing but darkness, desolation, 
 and death. A man with no sense of 
 religious duty is he whom the Scriptures 
 describe, in such terse but terrific lan- 
 guage, as living "without God in the 
 world." Such a man is out of his proper 
 being, out of the circle of all his duties, 
 out of the circle of all his happiness, and 
 away, far, far a^^Fy, from the purposes 
 of his creation. 
 
506 
 
 JEREMIAH MASON. 
 
 A mind like "Mr. Mason's, active, 
 thoughtful, penetrating, sedate, could 
 not but meditate deeply on the condi- 
 tion of man below, and feel its respon- 
 sibilities. He could not look on this 
 miglity system, 
 
 "This universal frame, thus wondrous fair," 
 
 without feeling that it was created and 
 upheld by an Intelligence, to which all 
 other intelligences must be responsible. 
 I am bound to say, that in the course of 
 my life I never met with an individual, 
 in any profession or condition of life, 
 who always spoke, and always thought, 
 with such awful reverence of the power 
 and presence of God. No in-everence, 
 no lightness, even no too familiar allu- 
 sion to God and his attributes, ever 
 escaped his lips. The very notion of a 
 Supreme Being was, with him, made up 
 of awe and solemnity. It filled the whole 
 of his great mind with the strongest 
 emotions. A man like him, with all his 
 proper sentiments and sensibilities alive 
 in him, must, in this state of existence, 
 have something to believe and some- 
 thing to hope for; or else, as life is ad- 
 vancing to its close and parting, all is 
 heai't-sinking and oppression. Depend 
 upon it, whatever may be the mind of 
 an old man, old age is only really happy, 
 when, on feeling the enjoyments of this 
 world pass away, it begins to lay a 
 stronger hold on those of another. 
 
 Mr. Mason's religious sentiments and 
 feelings were the crowning glories of his 
 character. One, Avith the strongest mo- 
 tives to love and venerate him, and the 
 best means of knowledge, says: — 
 
 " So far as my memory extends, he always 
 showed a deep conviction of the divine au- 
 thority of the Holy Scriptures, of the in- 
 stitutions of Christianity, and of the im- 
 portance of personal reUgion. Soon after 
 liis residence in Boston, he entered the com- 
 munion of the Clmrcli, and has continued 
 since regularly to receive the Lord's Supper. 
 From that time, he also habitually main- 
 tained domestic worship, morning and even- 
 ing. The doatli of two of his sons produced 
 a deep imi)ression upon his mind, and di- 
 rected it m an increased degree to religious 
 eubjccts. 
 
 " Though he was always reserved in the 
 
 expression of religious feeling, still it hen 
 been very apparent, for several years, that 
 his thoughts dwelt much upon Lis practical 
 religious duties, and especially upon prep- 
 aration for another world. Within tliree or 
 four years, he frequently led the conversa- 
 tion to such subjects ; and during the year 
 past, immediate preparation for his depart- 
 ure has been obviously the constant sub- 
 ject of his attention. His expressions in 
 regard to it were deeply humble ; and, in 
 deed, the very humble manner in which he 
 alwa3-s spoke of himself was most marked. 
 
 " I have observed, of late years, an in- 
 creasing tenderness in liis feelings and man- 
 ner, and a desire to impress his family witli 
 the conviction that he would not remain 
 long with them. His allusions of this kind 
 have been repeated, even when appirently 
 in his usual health ; and they indies ted the 
 current of his thoughts. 
 
 " He retained his consciousness till within 
 a few hours of his death, and made distinct 
 replies to every question put to him. He 
 was fully aware that his end was near ; and 
 in answer to the question, ' Can you now 
 rest with firm faith upon tlie merits of your 
 Divine Kedeemer ? ' he said, ' I trust I do • 
 upon what else can I rest ? ' 
 
 " At another time, in reply to a similar 
 question, he said, ' 0/ course, I have no 
 other ground of hope.' We did not often 
 speak to liim during those last three days, 
 but had no doubt that he was entirely con- 
 scious of his state, knew that his family 
 were all near, and that his mind was free 
 from anxiety. He could not speak with 
 ease, and we were unwilling to cause him the 
 pain of exertion. His whole life, marked 
 by uniform greatness, wisdom, and integ- 
 rity, his deep humility, his profound rev- 
 erence for the Divine Majesty, his habitual 
 preparation for death, his humble trust in 
 his Saviour, left nothing to be desired for 
 the consolation of his family under this 
 great loss. He was gradually prepared for 
 his departure. His last years were passed 
 in calm retirement ; and he died as ho 
 wished to die, with his faculties unimpaired, 
 without great pain, with his family around 
 his bed, the precious promises of the Gospel 
 before his mind, without lingering disease, 
 and yet not suddenly called away-" 
 
 Such, Mr. Chief Justice, was the 
 life, and such the death, of Jekemi.ui 
 Maso.n. For one, I could \x>ut out my 
 heart like water, at the recollection ol 
 his virtues and his friend.-hip, and in the 
 
JEREMIAH MASON. 
 
 591 
 
 feeling of his loss. T would embalm his 
 memory in my best affections. His per- 
 sonal regard, so long continued to me, I 
 esteem one of the greatest blessings of 
 my life; and I hope that it may be 
 known hereafter, that, \Yithout inter- 
 mission or coolness through many years, 
 and until he descended to his grave, ilr. 
 Mason and myself were friends. 
 
 Mr. ^Nlason died in old age ; not by a 
 violent stroke from the hand of death, 
 not by a sudden rupture of the ties of 
 nature, but by a gradual wearing out of 
 his constitution. He enjoyed through 
 life, indeed, remarkable health. He 
 took competent exercise, loved the open 
 air, and, avoiding all extreme theories 
 or practice, controlled his conduct and 
 habits of life by the rules of prudence 
 
 and moderation. Ilis death was there- 
 fore not unlike that described by the 
 angel, admonishmg Adam: — 
 
 " I yield it ]ust, said Adam, and submit. 
 But is there yet no other way, besides 
 These painful passages, how we may come 
 To death, and mix with our connatural dust? 
 
 There is, said >richael, if thou well observe 
 The rule of 'Not too much,' by tcmperart« 
 
 taught, 
 In what thou eat'st and drink'st; seeking 
 
 from thence 
 Due nourishment, not gluttonous delight ; 
 Till many years over thy head return, 
 So mayst thou live; till, like ripe fruit, tboa 
 
 drop 
 Into thy mother's lap; or be with ease 
 Gathered, not harshly plucked; for death 
 
 mature. 
 This ia old age." 
 
KOSSUTH. 
 
 FROM A SPEECH DELIVERED IN' BOSTON, ON THE "th OF NOVEMBER, 1849, 
 AT A FESTIVAL OF THE NATIVES OF NEW HA3II'SHIRE ESTABUSHED IN 
 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 We have all had our sympathies much 
 enlisted in the Hungarian effort for lib- 
 erty. We have all wept at its fail- 
 ure. We thought we saw a more ra- 
 tional hope of establishing free gov- 
 ernment in Hungary than in any other 
 part of Europe, where the question 
 has been in agitation within the last 
 twelve months. But despotic power 
 from abroad intervened to suppress that 
 hope. 
 
 And, Gentlemen, what will come of 
 it I do not know. For my part, at this 
 moment, I feel more indignant at recent 
 events connected with Hungary than at 
 all those which passed in her struggle for 
 liberty. I see that the Emperor of Rus- 
 sia demands of Turkey that the noble 
 Kossuth and his companions shall be 
 given up, to be dealt with at his pleas- 
 ure. And I see that this demand is 
 made in derision of the established law 
 of nations. Gentlemen, there is some- 
 thing on earth greater than arbitrary or 
 despotic power. The lightning has its 
 power, and the whirlwind has its power, 
 and the earthquake has its power; but 
 there is something among men more 
 capable of sliakiug despotic thrones 
 than lightning, whirlwind, or earth- 
 quake, and that is, the excited and 
 aroused indignation of the whole civil- 
 ized world. Gentlemen, the Emperor 
 of Russia holds himself to be bound by 
 the law of nations, from the fact that 
 he negotiates with civilized nations, and 
 that he forms alliances and treaties with 
 
 them. He professes, in fact, to live in 
 a civilized age, and to govern an en- 
 lightened nation. I say, that if, under 
 these circumstances, he shall perpetrate 
 so great a violation of national law as 
 to seize these Hungarians and to exe- 
 cute them, he will stand as a criminal 
 and malefactor in the view of the pub- 
 lic law of the world. The whole world 
 will be the tribunal to try him, and he 
 must appear before it, and hold up his 
 hand, and plead, and abide its judg- 
 ment. 
 
 The Emperor of Russia is the su- 
 preme lawgiver in his own coimtiy, 
 and, for aught I know, the executor of 
 that law also. But, thanks be to God, 
 lie is not the supreme lawgiver or exec- 
 utor of national law, and every offence 
 against that is an offence against the 
 rights of the civilized world. If he 
 breaks that law in the case of Turkey, 
 or any other case, the whole world has a 
 right to call him out, and to demand his 
 pmiishment. 
 
 Our rights as a nation, like those of 
 other nations, are held under the sanc- 
 tion of national law ; a law which be- 
 comes more important from day to day; 
 a law which none, who profess to agree 
 to it, are at liberty to violate. Nor let 
 him imagine, nor let any one imagine, 
 that mere force can subdue the general 
 sentiment of mankind. It is much 
 more likely to diffuse that sentiment, 
 and to destroy the power which he most 
 desires to establish and secure. 
 
KOSSUTU. 
 
 599 
 
 Gentlemen, the bones of poor John 
 Wicklille were dug out of his grave, 
 seventy years after his death, aud burnt 
 for his heresy; and his ashes were 
 thrown upon a river in Warwickshire. 
 Some prophet of that day said: 
 
 " The Avon to the Severn runs, 
 The Severn to the sea, 
 And Wickliffe's dust shall spread abroad, 
 Wide as the waters be." 
 
 Gentlemen, if the blood of Kossuth 
 is taken by an absolute, unqualified, 
 unjustifiable violation of national law, 
 what will it appease, what will it pacify? 
 It will mingle with the earth, it will mix 
 ■with the waters of the ocean, the whole 
 civilized world will snuff it in the air, 
 and it will return with awful retribution 
 on the heads of those violators of na- 
 
 tional law and universal justice. I can 
 not say when, or in what form; bul 
 depend upon it, that, if such an act take 
 place, then thrones, and principalities, 
 and powers, must look out for the con- 
 sequences. 
 
 And now, Gentlemen, let us do our 
 part; let us understand the position in 
 which we stand, as the great republic of 
 the world, at the most interesting era 
 of its history. Let us consider the mis- 
 sion and the destiny which Providence 
 seems to have designed for us, and let 
 us so take care of our own conduct, that, 
 with irreproachable hearts, and with 
 hands void of offence, we may otand up 
 whenever and wherever called upon, 
 and, with a voice not to be disregarded, 
 say. This shall not be done, at lease act 
 without our protest. 
 
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THl 
 
 7th of MAIiCH, 1850. 
 
 |On the 25th of January, 1850, Mr. Clay 
 eubinitted a series of resolutions to the Sen- 
 ate, on the subject of slavery, in connec- 
 tion with the various questions which had 
 arisen in consequence of the acquisition of 
 Mexican territory. These resolutions fur- 
 nished the occasion of a protracted debate. 
 On Wednesday, the 6th of March, Mr. 
 Walker of Wisconsin enpajred in the dis- 
 cussion, but, owing to the length of time 
 taken up by repeated interruptions, he was 
 unable to finish his argument. In the mean 
 time it had been generally understood that 
 Mr. Webster would, at an early day, take 
 an opi)ortunity of addressing the Senate on 
 the present aspect of the slavery question, 
 on the dangers to the Union of the existing 
 agitation, and on the terms of honorable 
 adjustment. In the expectation of hearing 
 a speech from him on these all-important 
 topics, an immense audience assembled in 
 tlie Senate-Chamber at an early hour of 
 Thursday, the 7th of March. The floor, tlie 
 galleries, and the antechambers of the Sen- 
 ate were crowded, and it was with difficulty 
 that the members themselves were able to 
 force their way to their scats. 
 
 At twelve o'clock the special order of the 
 day was announced, and the Vice-rresiilent 
 stated that Mr. Walker of Wisconsin was 
 entitled to the floor. That gentleman, how- 
 ever, rose and said : — 
 
 "Mr. President, this vast aiulicnce has not 
 come together to hear me, and tliere is but one 
 man, in my opinion, who can assemble sueli an 
 audience. Tlicy expect to hear liim, and I feel 
 it to be my duty, tiierefore, as it is my pleasure, 
 to give the floor to the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts. I understand it is immaterial to him upon 
 wiiieh of these questioua he speaks, and there- 
 fore I will not move to postpone the special 
 ordtr." 
 
 Mr. Web.ster tlien rose, and, after making 
 
 his acknowledgments to the Senators from 
 Wisconsin (Mr. ^\'alker) and New York 
 (Mr. Seward) for their courtesy in yielding 
 the floor to him, delivered the following 
 Hpecch, which, iu contideratiou of its cliar- 
 
 acter and of the manner in which it was re- 
 ceived throughout the coimtry, has been 
 entitled a speech for " the Constitution and 
 the Union." In the pamphlet edition it was 
 dedicated in the following terms to the peo- 
 ple of Massachusetts : — 
 
 WITH THE HIGHEST RESPECT, 
 
 AND T}IE DEEPEST SENSE OF OBLIGATION, 
 
 I DEDICATE THIS SPEECH 
 
 TO THE 
 
 PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 "His ECO GRATIORA DICTU ALIA ESSE SCIO; 8K0 
 MK VKK.V I"KO GKATIS LOQCI, KTSI MEIM INGR- 
 NIIM NON MONEBET, SECESSIT.VS COGIT. VELLEM, 
 EQIIDEM, VOBIS PLACERE; SED 5IVLTO MALO V03 
 BALVOS ESSE, QCALICUMQUE EEGA MK ASIMO FUTIRI 
 E3T1S." 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER.] 
 
 Mk. President, — I wish to speak 
 to-day, not as a Massachusetts man, iior 
 as a Northern mau, but as aii American, 
 and a member of the Senate of the 
 United States. It is fortunate that there 
 is a Senate of the United States; a body 
 not yet moved from its propriety, not 
 lost to a just sense of its own dignity 
 and its own high responsibiUties, and a 
 body to which tiie coimtr}- J.ooks, with 
 confidence, for wise, modeiate, patri- 
 otic, and healing counsels. It is not to 
 be denied that we live in the midst of 
 strong agitations, and are surrounded 
 by very considerable dangers to our in- 
 stitutions and govennuent. The impris- 
 oned winds are let loose. Tlie East, tlie 
 North, and the stormy South combine 
 to throw the whole sea into commotion, 
 to toss its billows to the skies, and dis- 
 close its profoundest depths. I do not 
 affect to regard myself, Mr. President, 
 
SPEECH OF THE Txii OF MARCH, 1850. 
 
 601 
 
 as holding, or as fit to liold, the hehn in 
 this coinhat witli the political elements; 
 but I have a duty to perforin, and I 
 mean to perform it with fidelity, not 
 without a sense of existing dangers, but 
 not witliout hope. I have a part to act, 
 not for my own security or safety, for I 
 am looking out for no fragment upon 
 which to tiout away from the wreck, if 
 wr->ck there must be, but for the good 
 of iht; whole, and the preservation of 
 aU ; and there is that which will keep 
 me to my duty during this struggle, 
 whether the sun and the stars shall ap- 
 pear, or shall not appear, for many days. 
 I speak to-day for the preservation of 
 the Union. " Hear me for my cause." 
 I speak to-day, out of a solicitous and 
 anxious heart, for the restoration to the 
 country of that quiet and that harmony 
 which make the blessings of this Union 
 so rich, and so dear to us all. These 
 are the topics that I propose to myself 
 to discuss; these are the motives, and 
 the sole motives, that influence me in 
 the wish to communicate my opinions 
 to the Senate and the countiy; and if I 
 can do any thing, however little, for the 
 promotion of these ends, I shall have 
 accomplished all that I expect. 
 
 Mr. President, it may not be amiss to 
 recur very briefly to the events which, 
 equally sudden and extraordinary, have 
 brought the country into its present 
 political condition. In May, 1846, the 
 United States declared war against Mex- 
 ico. Our armies, then on the frontiers, 
 entered the provinces of that republic, 
 met and defeated all her troops, jriene- 
 trated her mountain passes, and occu- 
 pied her capital. The marine force of 
 the United States took possession of her 
 forts and her towns, on the Atlantic and 
 on the Pacific. In less than two years 
 a treaty was negotiated, by which Mex- 
 ico ceded to the United States a vast 
 territoiy, extending seven or eight hun- 
 dred miles along the shores of the Pa- 
 cific, and reaching back over the moun- 
 tains, and across the desert, until it 
 joins the frontier of the State of Texas. 
 It so happened, in the distracted and 
 feeble condition of the ^Mexican govern- 
 Qient, that, before the declaration of war 
 
 by the United States against >rexico had 
 become known in California, the people 
 of California, under the lead of Amer- 
 ican officers, overthrew the existing Mex- 
 ican provincial government, and raised 
 an independent flag. AN'hen the news 
 arrived at San Fi'ancisco that war had 
 been declared by tlie United States 
 against Mexico, this independent flag 
 was pulled down, and the stars and 
 stripes of this Union hoisted in its stead. 
 So, Sir, before the war was over, the 
 forces of the United States, military and 
 naval, had possession of San Francisco 
 and Upper California, and a great rush 
 of emigrants from various parts of the 
 world took place into California in 1846 
 and 1847. But now behold another 
 wonder. 
 
 In January of 1848, a party of Mor- 
 mons made a discovery of an extraordi- 
 narily rich mine of gold, or rather of a 
 great quantity of gold, hardly proper to 
 be called a mine, for it was spread near 
 the surface, on the lower part of the 
 south, or American, branch of the Sac- 
 ramento. They attempted to conceal 
 their discovery for some time; but soon 
 another discovery of gold, perhaps of 
 greater importance, was made, on an- 
 other part of the American branch of 
 the Sacramento, and near Sutter's Fort, 
 as it is called. The fame of these dis- 
 coveries spread far and wide. They in- 
 flamed more and more the spirit of emi- 
 gration towards California, which had 
 already been excited ; and adventurers 
 crowded into the country by hundreds, 
 and flocked towards the Bay of San 
 Francisco. This, as I have said, took 
 place in the winter and spring of 1848. 
 The digging commenced in the spring 
 of that year, and from that time to this 
 the work of searching for gold has been 
 prosecuted \vith a success not heretofore 
 known in the history of this globe. You 
 recollect. Sir, how incredulous at first 
 the American public was at the accounts 
 which reached us of these discoveries 
 but we all know, now, that tliese ac- 
 counts received, and continue to receive, 
 daily confirmation, and down to the 
 present moment I suppose the assurance 
 ia as strong, after the experience of these 
 
602 
 
 SPEECH OF THE 7th JF MARCH, 1850, 
 
 several months, of the existence of de- 
 posits of gold apparently iuexliau^tible 
 in the regions near San Francisco, in 
 California, as it was at any period of the 
 earlier dates of the accounts. 
 
 It so happened, Sir, that although, 
 after the return of peace, it became a 
 very important subject for legislative 
 consideration and legislative decision to 
 provide a proper territorial government 
 for California, yet differences of opin- 
 ion between the two houses of Congress 
 prevented the establishment of any 
 such territorial government at the last 
 session. Under this state of things, 
 the inhabitants of California, already 
 amounting to a considerable number, 
 thought it to be their duty, in the 
 summer of last year, to establish a local 
 government. Under the proclamation 
 of General Riley, the people chose dele- 
 gates to a convention, and that conven- 
 tion met at Monterey. It formed a 
 constitution for the State of California, 
 which, being referred to the people, was 
 adopted by them in their primary 
 assembhiges. Desirous of immediate 
 connection with the United States, its 
 Senators were appointed and Represent- 
 atives chosen, who have come hither, 
 bringing with them the authentic con- 
 stitution of the State of California; and 
 they now present themselves, asking, 
 in behalf of tlieir constituents, that it 
 may be admitted into this Union as one 
 of the United States. This constitu- 
 tion. Sir, contains an express prohibi- 
 tion of slavery, or involuntary servitude, 
 in the State of California. It is said, 
 and I suppose truly, that, of the mem- 
 bers who composed that convention, 
 some sixteen were natives of, and had 
 been residents in, the slave-holding 
 States, about twenty-two were from the 
 non-slaveholding States, and' the remain- 
 ing ten members were either native Cal- 
 if ornians or old settlers in that country. 
 This prohibition of slavery, it is said, 
 wa,s inserted with entire unanimity. 
 
 It is this circumstance. Sir, the pro- 
 hibition of slavery, which has con- 
 tiibuted to raise, I do not say it has 
 wholly raised, the dispute as to the pro- 
 piiety of the admission of California 
 
 into tlie Union under this conslitutiou. 
 It is not to be denied, Mr. President, 
 nobody thinks of denying, that, what- 
 ever reasons were assigned at the com- 
 mencement of the late war with ^lexico, 
 it was prosecuted for the purpose of the 
 acquisition of territory, and under the 
 alleged argument that the cession of 
 territor}' was the only form in which 
 ]iroper compensation could be obtained 
 by the United States, from Mexico, for 
 the various claims and demands which 
 the people of this country had against 
 that government. At any rate, it will 
 be found that President Polk's message, 
 at the commencement of the session of 
 December, 1817, avowed that the war 
 was to be prosecuted until some acqui- 
 sition of territory should be made. As 
 the acquisition was to be south of the 
 line of the United States, in warm cli- 
 mates and countries, it was naturally, 
 I suppose, expected by the South, that 
 whatever acquisitions were made in that 
 region would be added to the slave- 
 holding portion of the United States. 
 Very little of accurate information was 
 possessed of the real physical character, 
 either of California or Xew Mexico, and 
 events have not turned out as was ex- 
 pected. Both California and New 
 i\Iexico are likely to come iu as free 
 States; and therefore some degree of 
 disapitointment and surprise has re- 
 sulted. In other words, it is obvious 
 that the question which has so long 
 harassed the country, and at some times 
 very seriously alarmed the minds of 
 wise and good men, has come upon us 
 for a fresh discussion, — the question 
 of slavery in these United States. 
 
 Now, Sir, I propose, perhaps at the 
 expense of some detail and consequent 
 detention of the Senate, to review liis- 
 torically this question, which, partly iu 
 consequence of its own importance, and 
 partly, perhaps mostly, iu consequence 
 of the nuvnner in which it has been dis- 
 cussed iu different portions of the coun- 
 try, has been a source of so mucli aliena- 
 ticu and unkind feeling between them. 
 
 We all know, Sir, that slavery liaa 
 existed in the world from time immemo- 
 rial. There was slavery, in the earliest 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND TUE UNION. 
 
 603 
 
 periods of history, among tlie Oriental 
 nations. There was shivery among tlie 
 Jews; (he theocratic government of tlnit 
 peoflo issued no injunction against it. 
 There was .shivery among tlie Greeks; 
 and the ingenious philosophy of tlie 
 Greets found, or sought to lind, a justi- 
 fication for it exactly upon tlie grounds 
 which iiave been assumed for such a 
 justification in this country; that is, a 
 natural and original difference among 
 the races of mankind, and the inferiority 
 of the hiack or colored race to the white. 
 Th<3 Greeks justified their system of 
 slavery upon that idea, precisely. They 
 held the African and some of the Asiatic 
 tribes to be inferior to the white i-ace; 
 but they did not show, I think, by any 
 close process of logic, that, if this were 
 true, the more intelligent and the stronger 
 had therefore a right to subjugate the 
 weaker. 
 
 The more manly philosophy and juris- 
 prudence of the Romans placed the jus- 
 tification of slavery on entirely different 
 grounds. The Koman jurists, from the 
 first and down to the fall of the empire, 
 admitted that slavery was against the 
 natural law, by which, as they main- 
 tained, all men, of whatsoever clime, 
 color, or capacity, were equal; but they 
 justified slavery, first, upon the ground 
 and authority of the law of nations, 
 arguing, and arguing truly, that at that 
 day the conventional law of nations ad- 
 mitted that captives in war, whose lives, 
 according to the notions of the times, 
 were at the absolute disposal of the 
 captors, might, in exchange for exemp- 
 tion from death, be made slaves for life, 
 and that such servitude might descend 
 to their posterity. The jurists of Rome 
 also maintained, that, by the civil law, 
 there might be servitude or slavery, 
 personal and hereditary; first, by the 
 voluntary act of an individual, who 
 might sell himself into slavery; secondly, 
 by his being reduced into a state of 
 slavery by his creditors, in satisfaction 
 of his debts; and, thirdly, by being 
 placed in a state of servitude or slavery 
 for crime. At the introduction of Chris- 
 tianity, the Roman world was full of 
 slaves, and I suppose there is to be found 
 
 no injunction against that relation be- 
 tween man and man in the teachings of 
 the Gospel of Jesus Christ or of any of 
 his Apostles. The object of the instruc- 
 tion imparted to mankind l)y the Foundei 
 of Christianity was to touch the heart, 
 purify tlie soul, and improve the lives 
 of individual men. That object went 
 directly to the first fountain of all the 
 political and social relations of the hu- 
 man race, as well as of all true religious 
 feeling, the individual heart and mind 
 of man. 
 
 Now, Sir, upon the general nature and 
 influence of slavery there exists a wide 
 difference of opinion between the north- 
 ern portion of this country and the 
 southern. It is said on the one side, 
 that, although not the subject of any 
 injunction or direct prohibition in the 
 New Testament, slaveiy is a wrong; 
 that it is founded merely in the right of 
 the strongest; and that it is an oppres- 
 sion, like unjust wars, like all those con- 
 flicts by which a powerful nation subjects 
 a weaker to its will; and that, in its 
 nature, whatever may be said of it in 
 the modifications which have taken 
 place, it is not according to the meek 
 spirit of the Gospel. It is not "kindly 
 affectioned " ; it does not "seek an- 
 other's, and not its own"; it does not 
 " let the oppressed go free." These are 
 sentiments that are cherished, and of late 
 with greatly augmented force, among the 
 people of the Northern States. They 
 have taken hold of the religious senti- 
 ment of that part of the country, as they 
 have, more or less, taken hold of the re- 
 ligious feelings of a considerable portion 
 of mankind. The South, upon the other 
 side, having been accustomed to this re- 
 lation between the two races all their 
 lives, from their birth, having been 
 taught, in general, to treat the subjects 
 of this bondage with care and kindness, 
 and I believe, in general, feeling great 
 kindness for them, have not taken the 
 view of the subject which I have men- 
 tioned. There are thousands of relig- 
 ious men, with consciences as tender aa 
 any of their brethren at the North, who 
 do not see the unlawfulne.ss of .slavery 
 and there are more thousands, perhaps. 
 
604 
 
 SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 
 
 that, whatsoever they may think of it in 
 its origin, and as a matter depending 
 upon natural right, yet take things as 
 they are, and, finding slavery to be an 
 established relation of the society in 
 which they live, can see no way in 
 which, let their opinions on the abstract 
 question be what they may, it is in the 
 power of the present generation to relieve 
 themselves from this relation. And 
 candor obliges me to say, that I believe 
 they are just as conscientious, many of 
 them, and the religious people, all of 
 them, as they are at the North wlio 
 hold different opinions. 
 
 The honorable Senator from South 
 Carolina ^ the other day alluded to the 
 separation of that great religious com- 
 munity, the Methodist Episcopal Chm-ch. 
 That separation was brought about by 
 differences of opinion upon this particu- 
 lar subject of slavery. I felt great con- 
 cern, as that dispute went on, about the 
 result. I was in hopes that the differ- 
 ence of opinion might be adjusted, be- 
 cause I looked upon that religious de- 
 nomination as one of the great props 
 of religion and morals throughout the 
 whole country, from Maine to Georgia, 
 and westward to our utmost western 
 boundary. The result was against my 
 wishes and against my hopes. I have 
 read all their proceedings and all their 
 arguments; but I have never yet been 
 able to come to the conclusion that there 
 was any real ground for that separation ; 
 in other words, that any good could be 
 produced by that sejiaration. I must 
 say I think there was some want of 
 candor and charity. Sir, when a ques- 
 tion of this kind seizes on the religious 
 sentiments of mankind, and comes to be 
 discussed in religious assemblies of the 
 clergy and laity, there is always to be 
 expected, or always to be feared, a great 
 degree of excitement. It is in the 
 nature of man, manifested by his whole 
 historj', that religious disputes are apt 
 to become warm in proportion to the 
 strength of the convictions which men 
 entertain of the magnitude of the ques- 
 tions at i.ssue. In all such di.'^j'^tes, 
 there will sometimes be found men with 
 
 1 Mr. Calhoun. 
 
 whom everj' thing is absolute ; aDsoluto- 
 ly WTong, or absolutely right. They see 
 the right clearly ; they think others ought 
 so to see it, and they are disposed to es- 
 tablish a broad line of distinction be- 
 tween what is right and what is wrong. 
 They are not seldom willing to establish 
 that line upon their own conviction^ of 
 truth and justice; and are ready to mark 
 and guard it by placing along it a series 
 of dogmas, as lines of boundan,- on the 
 earth's surface are marked by posts and 
 stones. There are men who, with clear 
 perceptions, as they think, of their own 
 duty, do not see how too eager a pm'suit 
 of one duty may involve them in the 
 violation of others, or how too warm an 
 embracement of one truth may lead to 
 a disregard of other truths equally im- 
 jjortant. As I heard it stated strongly, 
 not many days ago, these persons are 
 disposed to mount upon some particular 
 duty, as upon a war-horse, and to diive 
 f m'iously on and upon and over all other 
 duties that may stand in the way. There 
 are men who, in reference to disputes of 
 that sort, are of opinion that human 
 duties may be ascertained with the ex- 
 actness of mathematics. They deal 
 with morals as with mathematics ; and 
 they think what is right may be dis- 
 tinguished from what is wrong with 
 the precision of an algebraic equation. 
 They have, therefore, none too much 
 charity towards others who differ from 
 them. They are apt, too, to think that 
 nothing is good but what is perfect, and 
 that there are no compromises or modi- 
 fications to be made in consideration of 
 difference of opinion or in deference to 
 other men's judgment. If their per- 
 spicacious vision enables tliem to detect 
 a spot on the face of the sun, they think 
 that a good reason why the sun should 
 be struck down from heaven. They 
 prefer the chance of running into titter 
 darkness to living in heavenly light, if 
 that heavenly liglit be not absolutely 
 without any imperfection. There are 
 impatient men ; too impatient always to 
 give heed to the admonition of St. Paid, 
 that we are not to "do evil that good 
 may come"; too impatient to wait for 
 the slo X progress of moral causes in the 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 605 
 
 improvement of mankind. They do not 
 remember tliat the doctrines and the 
 miracles of Jesus Christ have, in eigh- 
 teen Imndred years, converted only a 
 tsmall portion of the human race; and 
 among the nations that are converted to 
 Christianity, they forget how many vices 
 and crimes, public and private, still pre- 
 vail, and that many of them, public 
 crimes especially, which are so clearly 
 cfEeuces against the Christian religion, 
 pass without exciting particular indig- 
 nation. Thus wars are waged, and 
 unjust wars. I do not deny that there 
 may be just wars. There certainly are; 
 but it was the remark of an eminent 
 person, not many years ago, on the 
 other side of the Atlantic, that it is one 
 of the greatest reproaches to human 
 nature that wars are sometimes just. 
 The defence of nations sometimes causes 
 a just war against the injustice of other 
 nations. In this state of sentiment 
 upon the general nature of slaverj' lies 
 the cause of a great part of those un- 
 happy divisions, exasperations, and re- 
 proaches which find vent and support in 
 different parts of the Union. 
 
 But we must view things as they are. 
 Slavery does exist in the United States. 
 It did exist in the States before the 
 adoption of this Constitution, and at 
 that time. Let us, therefore, consider 
 for a moment what was the state of sen- 
 timent. North and South, in regard to 
 slavery, at the time this Constitution 
 was adopted. A remarkable change has 
 taken place since ; but what did the wise 
 and great men of all parts of the country 
 think of slavei-y then ? In what esti- 
 mation did they hold it at the time when 
 this Constitution was adopted? It will 
 be found. Sir, if we will carry ourselves 
 by historical research back to that day, 
 and ascertain men's opinions by authen- 
 tic records still existing among us, that 
 there was then no diversity of opinion 
 betweim the Xorth and the South upon 
 the subject of slavery. It will be found 
 that both parts of the country held it 
 equally an evil, — a moral and political 
 evil. It will not be found that, either 
 at the North or at the South, there was 
 much, though there was some, invective 
 
 against slavery as inhuman and cruel. 
 The great ground of objection to it was 
 political; that it weakened the social 
 fabric; that, taking the place of free 
 labor, society became less strong and 
 labor less productive ; and therefore we 
 find from all the eminent men of the 
 time the clearest expression of their 
 opinion that slavery is an evil. They 
 ascribed its existence here, not without 
 truth, and not without some acerbity of 
 temper and force of language, to the 
 injurious policy of the mother country, 
 who, to favor the navigator, had entailed 
 these evils upon the Colonies. I need 
 hardly refer. Sir, particularly to the pub- 
 lications of the day. They are matters 
 of history on the record. The eminent 
 men, the most eminent men, and nearly 
 all the conspicuous politicians of the 
 South, held the same sentiments, — that 
 slavei-y was an evil, a blight, a scourge, 
 and a curse. There are no terms of 
 reprobation of slavery so vehement in 
 the Xorth at that day as in the South. 
 The North was not so much excited 
 against it as the South ; and the reason 
 is, I suppose, that there was much less 
 of it at the North, and the people did 
 not see, or think they saw, the evils 
 so prominently as they were seen, oi 
 thought to be seen, at the South. 
 
 Then, Sir, when this Constitution was 
 framed, this was the light in which the 
 Federal Convention viewed it. That 
 body reflected the judgment and senti- 
 ments of the gi-eat men of the South. 
 A member of the other house, whom I 
 have not the honor to know, has, in a 
 recent speech, collected extracts from 
 these public documents. They prove 
 the truth of what 1 am saying, and the 
 question then was, how to deal with it, 
 and how to deal with it as an evil. 
 They came to this general result. They 
 thought that slavery could not be con- 
 tinued in the country if the importation 
 of slaves were made to cease, apd there- 
 fore they provided that, after a certain 
 period, the importation might be pre- 
 vented by the act of the new govern- 
 ment. The period of twenty years was 
 proposed by some gentleman from the 
 North, I think, and many members oi 
 
606 
 
 SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 
 
 the Convention from the South opposed 
 it as being too long. Mr. Madison 
 especially was somewhat warm against 
 it. lie said it would bring too much of 
 this mischief into the country to allow 
 tlie importation of slaves for such a 
 period. Because we must take along 
 with us, in the whole of this discussion, 
 Til ;n we are considering the sentiments 
 and opinions in which the constitutional 
 provision originated, that the conviction 
 of all men was, that, if the importation 
 of slaves ceased, the wliite race would 
 multiply faster than the black race, and 
 that slavery would therefore gradually 
 wear out and expire. It may not be 
 improper here to allude to that, I had 
 almost said, celebrated opinion of Mr. 
 Madison. You observe, Sir, that the 
 term slare, or slavery, is not used in the 
 Constitution. The Constitution does 
 not require that " fugitive slaves " shall 
 be delivered up. It requires that per- 
 sons held to service in one State, and 
 escaping into another, shall be delivered 
 up. Mr. ]\Iadison opposed the intro- 
 duction of the terra slave, or slavery, into 
 the Constitution; for he said that he did 
 not wish to see it recognized by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States of America 
 that there could be property in men. 
 
 Xow, Sir, all this took place in the 
 Convention in 1787; but connected with 
 this, concurrent and contemporaneous, 
 is another important transaction, not 
 sufficiently attended to. The Conven- 
 tion for framing this Constitution as- 
 sembled in Philadelphia in May, and 
 sat until September, 1787. During all 
 that time the Congress of the United 
 States was in session at New York. It 
 was a matter of design, as we know, 
 that the Convention should not a.ssemble 
 in tlie same city where Congress was 
 holding its ses.sions. Almost all the 
 public men of the countrj^ therefore, of 
 distinction and eminence, were in one or 
 the other of these two assemblies; and I 
 think it happened, in some instances, 
 tliai the same gentlemen were mem- 
 bers of both bodies. If I mistake not, 
 snch was the case with Mr. Rufus King, 
 tlien a member of Congress from Massa- 
 chusetts. Now, at the very time when 
 
 the Convention in Philadelphia was 
 framing this Constitution, the Congress 
 in Xew York was framing the Ordinance 
 of 1787, for the organization and govern- 
 ment of the territory northwest of the 
 Ohio. They passed that Ordinance on 
 the 13th of July, 1787, at Xew York, 
 the very month, perhaps the very day, 
 on which these questions about the im- 
 portation of slaves and the character of 
 slavery were debated in the Convention 
 at Philadelphia. So far as we can now 
 learn, there was a perfect concurrence 
 of opinion between these two bodies; 
 and it resulted in this Ordinance of 
 1787, excluding slavery from all the ter- 
 ritory over M'hich tlie Congress of the 
 United States had jurisdiction, and that 
 was all the territory northwest of the 
 Ohio. Three years before, Virginia and 
 other States had made a cession of that 
 great territory to the United States; and 
 a most munificent act it was. I never 
 reflect upon it without a disposition to do 
 honor and justice, and justice would be 
 the highest honor, to Virginia, for the 
 cession of her nortliwestern territory. 
 I will say, Sir, it is one of her fairest 
 claims to the respect and gratitude of 
 the country, and that, perhaps, it is only 
 second to that other claim which belonara 
 to her, — that from her counsels, and 
 from the intelligence and patriotism of 
 her leading statesmen, proceeded the first 
 idea put into practice of the formation 
 of a general constitution of the United 
 States. The Ordinance of 1787 applied 
 to the whole territory over which the 
 Congress of the United States had juris- 
 diction. It was adopted two years be- 
 fore the Constitution of the United 
 States went into operation ; because th» 
 Ordinance took effect immediately on 
 its pa.ssage, while the Constitution of 
 the United States, having been framed, 
 was to be sent to the States to bo 
 adopted by then- conventions; an.l then 
 a government was to be organized undei 
 it. This Ordinance, then, was in opera- 
 tion and force whcTi the Constitution 
 was adopted, and the government put 
 in motion, in April, 1789. 
 
 Mr. President, throe things are quit* 
 clear as historical truths. One is, that 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UMON. 
 
 607 
 
 thei'e was an expectation tliat, on the 
 ceasing of the importation of skives 
 from Africa, slavery would b('t::iii to run 
 out here. Tluit was hoped and expected. 
 Another is, tliat, as far as there was any 
 power in Congress to prevent tlie spread 
 of slavery in the United States, that 
 power was executed in the most absolute 
 manner, and to the fullest extent. An 
 honorable meml)er,^ whose health does 
 uot allow him to be here to-day — 
 
 A Sexator. He is here. 
 
 I am very happy to hear that he is; 
 may he long be here, and in the enjoy- 
 ment of health to serve his country! 
 The honorable member said, the other 
 day, that he considered this Ordinance 
 as the first in the series of measures cal- 
 culated to enfeeble the South, and de- 
 prive them of their just participation in 
 the benefits and privileges of this gov- 
 ernment, lie says, very pi-ojierly, that 
 it was enacted under the old Confedera- 
 tion, and before this Constitution went 
 into effect; but my present purpose is 
 only to say, j\Ir. President, that it was 
 established with the entire and unani- 
 mous concurrence of the whole South. 
 "Why, there it stands ! The vote of every 
 State in the Union was unanimous in 
 favor of the Ordinance, with the excep- 
 tion of a single individual vote, and that 
 individual vote was given by a Xorthern 
 man. This Ordinance prohibiting sla- 
 very for ever northwest of the Ohio has 
 the hand and seal of every Southern 
 member in Congress. It was therefore 
 no aggression of the North on the South. 
 The other and third clear historical truth 
 is, that the Convention meant to leave 
 slavery in the States as they found it, 
 entirely under the authority and control 
 of the States themselves. 
 
 This was the state of things. Sir, and 
 this the state of opinion, under which 
 those very important matters wore ar- 
 ranged, and those three important things 
 done; that is, the establishment of the 
 Constitution of the United States with 
 a recognition of slavery as it existed in 
 the States; the establishment of the 
 ordinance for the government of the 
 » Mr. Calhoun. 
 
 Xorthwestern Territory, prohibiting, to 
 the full extent of all territory owned by 
 the United States, the introduction of 
 slavery into that territory, while leaving 
 to the States all power over slavery in 
 their own limits; and creating a power, 
 in the new government, to put an end 
 to the importation of slaves, after a lim- 
 ited period. There was entire coinci- 
 dence and concurrence of sentiment 
 between the North and the South, upon 
 all these questions, at the period of the 
 adoption of the Constitution. Hut opin- 
 ions, Sir, have changed, greatly changed ; 
 changed North and changed South. 
 Shivery is not regarded in the South 
 now as it was then. I see an honorable 
 member of this body paying me the 
 honor of listening to my remarks;^ he 
 brings to my mind, Sir, freshly and 
 vividly, what I have learned of his great 
 ancestor, so much distinguished in his 
 day and generation, so worthy to be 
 succeeded by so worthy a grandson, and 
 of the sentiments he expressed in the 
 Convention in Philadelphia. ^ 
 
 Here we may pause. There was, if 
 not an entire unanimity, a general con- 
 currence of sentiment running through 
 the whole community, and e.specially en 
 tertained by the eminent men of all 
 parts of the country. But soon a change 
 began, at the North and the South, and 
 a difference of opinion showed itself; the 
 North growing much more w'arm and 
 strong against slavery, and the South 
 growing much more warm and strong in 
 its support. Sir, there is no generation 
 of mankind whose opinions are not sub- 
 ject to be influenced by what appear to 
 them to be their present emergent and 
 exigent interests. I impute to the South 
 no particularly selfish view in the change 
 which has come over her. I impute to 
 her certainly no dishonest view. All 
 that has happened has been natural. It 
 has followed those causes which always 
 influence the human mind and operate 
 upon it. What, then, have been thft 
 causes which have created so new a feel- 
 ing in favor of slavery in the South, 
 
 1 Mr. Jlason of Virginia. 
 
 2 See Madison Papers, Vol. III. pp. U90, 
 1428, et seq. 
 
608 
 
 SPEECH OF THE Txn OF MARCH, 1850, 
 
 which have changed the whole nomen- 
 clature of the South on that subject, so 
 that, from being tliought and described 
 in the terms I have mentioned and will 
 not repeat, it has now become an insti- 
 tution, a cherished institution, in that 
 quarter; no e\nl, no scourge, but a great 
 religious, social, and moral blessing, as I 
 think I have heard it latterly spoken of? 
 I suppose this. Sir, is owing to the rapid 
 growth and sudden extension of the cot- 
 ton plantations of the South. So far as 
 ail}- motive consistent with honor, jus- 
 tice, and general judgment could act, it 
 was the cotton interest that gave a new 
 desire to promote slavery, to spread it, 
 and to use its labor. I again say that 
 this change was produced by causes 
 which must always pioduce like effects. 
 The wliole interest of the South became 
 connected, more or less, with the exten- 
 sion of slavery. If we look back to the 
 history of the commerce of this country 
 in the early years of this government, 
 what were our exports? Cotton was 
 hardly, or but to a very limited extent, 
 known. In 1791 the first parcel of cot- 
 ton of the growth of the United States 
 was exported, and amounted only to 
 19,200 pounds. 1 It has gone on in- 
 creasing rapidly, until the whole crop 
 may now, perhaps, in a season of great 
 product and high prices, amount to a 
 hundred millions of dollars. In tlie 
 years I have mentioned, there was more 
 of wax, more of indigo, more of rice, 
 more of almost every article of export 
 from the South, than of cotton. When 
 Mr. Jay negotiated the treaty of 1791 with 
 England, it is evident from the twelfth 
 article of the treaty, which was sus- 
 pended by the Senate, that he did not 
 know that cotton was exported at all 
 from the United States. 
 
 "Well, Sir, we know what followed. 
 The age of cotton became the golden 
 age of our Southern brethren. It grati- 
 fied their desire for improvement and 
 accumulation, at the same time that it 
 
 1 Seybert's Statistics, p. 92. A small parcel 
 of cotton found its way to Liverpool Ironi the 
 United States in 1784, and was refused admis- 
 sion, on tiie frround that it could not be the 
 growth of the United States. 
 
 excited it. The desire grew by what it 
 fed ujwn, and there soon came to be an 
 eagerness for other territory, a new area 
 or new areas for the cultivation of the cot- 
 ton crop; and measures leading to this 
 result were brought about rapidly, one 
 after another, under the lead of Southern 
 men at the head of the government, 
 they having a majority in both branches 
 of Congress to accom2:>lish their ends. 
 The honorable member from South Caro- 
 lina^ observed that there has been a 
 majority all along in favor of the North. 
 If that be true. Sir, the North has acted 
 either veiy liberally and kindly, or very 
 weakly; for they never exercised that 
 majority efficiently five times in the 
 history of the government, when a di- 
 vision or trial of strength arose. Never. 
 Whether they were outgeneralled, or 
 whether it w'as owing to other causes, I 
 shall not stop to consider; but no man 
 acquainted with the history of the Union 
 can deny that the general lead in the 
 politics of the country, for three fourths 
 of the period that has elapsed since the 
 adoption of the Constitution, has been a 
 Southern lead. 
 
 In 1802, in pursuit of the idea of open- 
 ing a new cotton region, the United 
 States obtained a cession from Georgia 
 of the whole of her western territory, 
 now embracing the rich and growing 
 States of Alabama and Mississippi. In 
 1803 Louisiana was purchased from 
 France, out of which the States of Lou- 
 isiana, Arkansas, and Mis.souri have been 
 framed, as slave-holding States. In 1810 
 the cession of Florida was made, bring- 
 ing in another region adapted to culti- 
 vation by slaves. Sir, the honorable 
 member from South Carolina thought 
 he saw in certain operations of the gov- 
 ernment, such as the manner of collect- 
 ing the revenue, and the tendency of 
 measures calculated to promote emigra- 
 tion into the country, what acc>.unts for 
 the more rapid growth of the North than 
 the South. He ascribes that more rapid 
 growth, not to the operation of time, 
 but to the system of government and 
 administration established under this 
 Constitution. That is matter of opin- 
 1 Mr. Calhoun. 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 605) 
 
 ion. To a certain extent it may be 
 true; but it does seem to me that, if any 
 operation of the government can be 
 shown in any degree to liave promoted 
 the population, and growth, and wealth 
 of the North, it is much more sure that 
 there are sundry important and distinct 
 operations of the government, about 
 which no man can doubt, tending to 
 promote, and which absolutely have pro- 
 moted, the increase of the slave interest 
 and the slave territor)' of the South. It 
 •was not time that brought in Louisiana; 
 it was the act of men. It was not time 
 that brouglit in Florida; it was the act 
 of men. And lastly, Sir, to complete 
 those acts of legislation which have con- 
 tributed so much to enlarge the area of 
 the institution of slavery, Texas, gi-eat 
 and vast and illimitable Texas, was 
 added to the Union as a slave State in 
 184.5; and that, Sir, pretty much closed 
 the whole chapter, and settled the whole 
 account. 
 
 That closed the whole chapter and 
 settled the whole account, because the 
 annexation of Texas, upon the condi- 
 tions and under the guaranties upon 
 which she was admitted, did not leave 
 within the control of this government 
 an acre of land, capable of being culti- 
 vated by slave labor, between this Capi- 
 tol and the Rio Graude or the Nueces, 
 or whatever is the proper boundary of 
 Texas ; not an acre. From that moment, 
 the whole country, from this place to the 
 western boundary of Texas, was fixed, 
 pledged, fastened, decided, to be slave 
 territory for ever, by the solemn guar- 
 anties of law. And I now say, Sir, as 
 the proposition upon which I stand this 
 day, and upon the truth and firmness of 
 which I intend to act until it is over- 
 thrown, that tliere is not at this moment 
 ■within the United States, or any terri- 
 tory of the United States, a single foot 
 of land, the character of which, in re- 
 gard to its being free territory or slave 
 territory, is not fixed by some law, and 
 some irrepealable law, beyond the ix)wer 
 of the action of the government. Is it 
 not so with respect to Texas'? It is 
 most manifestly so. The honorable mem- 
 ber from South Carolina, at the time of 
 
 the admission of Texas, held an impor- 
 tant post in the executive department of 
 the government; he was Secretary of 
 State. Another eminent person of gi'eat 
 activity and adroitness in affairs, I mean 
 the late Secretary of the Treasury,^ was 
 a conspicuous member of this body, and 
 took the lead in the business of annexa- 
 tion, in co-operation with the Secretary 
 of State; and I must say that they did 
 their business faithfully and thoroughly; 
 there was no botch left in it. They 
 rounded it off, and made as clo.se joiner- 
 work as ever was exhibited. Resolu- 
 tions of annexation were brought into 
 Congress, fitly joined together, compact, 
 efficient, conclusive upon the great object 
 which they had in view, and those reso- 
 lutions passed. 
 
 Allow me to read a part of these reso- 
 lutions. It is the third clause of the 
 second section of the resolution of the 
 1st of March, 1815, for the admission of 
 Texas, which applies to this part of the 
 case. That clause is as follows : — 
 
 " New States, of convenient size, not ex- 
 ceeding four in number, in addition to said 
 State of Texas, and liaving sufficient popu- 
 hition, may hereafter, by the consent of 
 said State, be formed out of the territory 
 thereof, which siiall be entitled to admis- 
 sion imder the provisions of the Federal 
 Constitution. And such States as may be 
 formed out of that portion of said territory 
 lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty 
 minutes north latitude, commonly known 
 as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be 
 admitted into the Union with or without 
 slavery, as the people of each State asking 
 admission may desire ; and in such State 
 or States as shall be formed out of said 
 territory north of said Missouri Compro- 
 mise line, slavery or involuntary servitude 
 (except for crime) shall be prohibited." 
 
 Now what is here stipulated, enacted, 
 and secured? It is, that all Texas south 
 of 36° 30', which is nearly the whole of 
 it, shall be admitted into the Union as 
 a slave State. It was a slave State, and 
 therefore came in as a slave State ; and 
 the guaranty is, that new States shall 
 be made out of it, to the number of 
 four, in addition to the State then in 
 
 1 Mr. Walker. 
 
 39 
 
GIO 
 
 SPEFXH OF THE Txn OF MAUCH, 1850, 
 
 existence and admitted at that time by 
 thej-e resolutions, and that such States 
 as are formed out of tliat portion of 
 Texas lying south of 36° 'dfy may come 
 in as slave States. I know no form of 
 legislation which can strengthen this. 
 T know no mode of recognition that can 
 add a tittle of weight to it. I listened 
 respectfully to the resolutions of my 
 honorable friend from Tennessee.^ He 
 proposed to recognize that stipulation 
 with Texas. But anv additional recog- 
 nitiuu would weaken tlie force of it; 
 because it stands here on the ground of 
 a contract, a thing done for a considera- 
 tion. It is a law founded on a contract 
 with Texas, and designed to carry that 
 contract into effect. A recognition now, 
 found'^l not on any consideration, or 
 any contract, would not be so strong as 
 it now stands on the face of the resolu- 
 tion. T know no way, I candidly con- 
 fess, in which this government, acting 
 in good faith, as I trust it always will, 
 can relieve itself from that stipulation 
 and pledge, by any honest course of 
 legislation whatever. And therefore I 
 say again, that, so far as Texas is con- 
 cerned, in the whole of that State south 
 of 36° 30', which, I suppose, embraces 
 all the territory capable of slave cultiva- 
 tion, there is no land, not an acre, the 
 character of which is not establislied by 
 law; a law which cannot be repealed 
 without the violation of a contract, and 
 plain disregard of the public faith. 
 
 I hope, Sir, it is now apparent that 
 my proposition, so far as it respects 
 Texas, has been maintained, and that 
 the provision in this article is clear and 
 absolute; and it has been well suggested 
 by my friend from Rhode Island,'^ that 
 that part of Texas which lies north of 
 30° 30' of north latitude, and which 
 may be formed into free States, is de- 
 pendent, in like manner, ujion the con- 
 sent of Texas, herself a slave State. 
 
 Now, Sir, how came this? IIow came 
 it to pass that within these walls, where 
 it is said by the honorable member from 
 South Carolina that the free States have 
 always had a majority, this resolution 
 of annexation, such as I have described 
 1 Air. Bull. 2 Mr. Greene, 
 
 it, obtained a majority in both housee 
 of Congress? Sir, it obtainid that 
 majority by the great number of North- 
 ern votes added to the entire Southern 
 vote, or at least nearly the whole of 
 the Southern vote. The aggregate was 
 made up of Northern and Southern 
 votes. In the House of Representatives 
 there were about eighty Southern votes 
 and about fifty Northern votes for the 
 admission of Texas. In the Senate the 
 vote for the admission of Texas was 
 twenty-seven, and twenty-five against 
 it; and of those twenty-seven votes, 
 constituting the majority, no less than 
 thirteen came from the free States, and 
 four of them weie from New Entrland. 
 The whole of these thirteen Senators, 
 constituting within a fraction, you see, 
 one lialf of all the votes in this body for 
 the admission of this immeasurable ex- 
 tent of slave territory, were sent here 
 by free States. 
 
 Sir, there is not so remarkable a 
 chapter in our history of political events, 
 political parties, and political men as is 
 afforded by this admission of a new 
 slave-holding territory, so vast that a 
 bird cannot fly over it in a week. New 
 England, as I have said, with some of 
 her own votes, supported this measure. 
 'J'hree fourths of the votes of liberty- 
 loving Connecticut were given for it in 
 the other house, and one half here. 
 There was one vote for it from Elaine, 
 but, I am happy to say, not the vote of 
 the honorable member who addressed 
 the Senate the day before yesterday,^ 
 and who was then a Representative from 
 Elaine in the House of Representatives; 
 but there was one vote from Maine, ay, 
 and there was one vote for it from Mas- 
 sachusetts, given by a gentleman then 
 representing, and now living in, the 
 district in which the prevalence of Free 
 Soil sentiment for a couple of years or 
 so has defeated the choice of any mem- 
 ber to represent it in Congress. Sir, 
 tliat body of Northernand Eastern men 
 who gave those votes at that time are 
 now seen taking upon themselves, in 
 the nomenclature of politics, the ap- 
 pellation of the Nortliern Democracy. 
 1 Mr. Hamlin. 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 611 
 
 They undortook to wieUl the dostinies 
 of thi.s empire, if I may give that name 
 to a republic, and their policy was, and 
 they persisted in it, to bring into this 
 country and under this government all 
 the territory they could. They did it, 
 in the case of Texas, under pledges, ab- 
 solute pledges, to the slave interest, and 
 tin-y afterwards lent their aid in bring- 
 Ixig in these new conquests, to take 
 their chance for slavery or freedom. 
 My honorable friend from Georgia,^ in 
 March, 1847, moved the Senate to de- 
 clare tliat the war ought not to be pros- 
 ecuted for the conquest of Territory, or 
 for the dismemberment of Mexico. The 
 whole of the Nortliern Democracy voted 
 agaiust it. He did not get a vote from 
 them. It suited the patriotic and ele- 
 vated sentiments of the Northern De- 
 mocracy to bring in a world from among 
 the mountains and valleys of California 
 and New Mexico, or any other part of 
 Mexico, and then quarrel about it ; to 
 bring it in, and then endeavor to put 
 upon it the saving grace of the Wilmot 
 Proviso. There were two eminent and 
 highly respectable gentlemen from the 
 North and East, then leading gentlemen 
 in the Senate, (I refer, and I do so with 
 entire respect, for I entertain for both 
 of those gentlemen, in general, high re- 
 gard, to Mr. Dix of New York and Mr. 
 Niles of Connecticut,) who both voted 
 for the admission of Texas. They 
 would not have that vote any other way 
 than as it stood; and they would have 
 it as it did stand. I speak of the vote 
 upon the annexation of Texas. Those 
 two gentlemen would have the resolu- 
 tion of annexation just as it is, without 
 amendment; aud they voted for it just 
 as it is, and their eyes were all open 
 to its true character. The honorable 
 member from South Carolina who ad- 
 dressed us the other day was then Sec- 
 retary of State. His correspondence 
 with Mr. Murphy, the Charged' Affaires 
 of the United States in Texas, had been 
 published. That correspondence was all 
 before those gentlemen, and the Secre- 
 tary had the boldness aud candor to 
 avow iu that correspondence, that the 
 1 Mr. Berrien. 
 
 great object souglit by the annexation of 
 Texas was to strengthen the slave inter- 
 est of the South. Why, Sir, he said so 
 in so many words — 
 
 Mk. CALnouN. Will tlie honorable Sen- 
 ator permit me to interrupt him for a 
 moment ? 
 
 Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun. I am very reluctant to 
 interrupt the honorable gentleman ; but, 
 upon a point of so much importance, I 
 deem it right to put myself rectus in curia. 
 I did not put it upon the ground assumed 
 by tlie Senator. I put it upon this ground: 
 that Great Britain liad announced to this 
 country, in so many words, that her object 
 was to abohsh slavery in Texas, and, 
 through Texas, to accomplish the abolition 
 of slavery in the United States and the 
 world. The ground I put it on was, that 
 it woul(i make an exposed frontier, and, if 
 Great Britain succeeded in her object, it 
 would be impossible that that frontier 
 could be secured against the aggressions of 
 the AboUtionists; and that this government 
 was bound, under the guaranties of the 
 Constitution, to protect us against such a 
 state of things. 
 
 That comes, I suppose. Sir, to exactly 
 the same thing. It was, that Texas 
 must be obtained for the security of the 
 slave interest of the South. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun. Another view is very 
 distinctly given. 
 
 That was the object set forth in the 
 correspondence of a worthy gentleman 
 not now living, 1 who preceded the hon- 
 orable member from South Carolina in 
 the Department of State. There re- 
 pose on the files of the Department, as 
 I have occasion to know, strong letters 
 from Mr. Upshiu* to the United States 
 ^Minister in England, and I believe there 
 are some to the same Minister from the 
 honorable Senator himself, asserting to 
 this effect the sentiments of this govern- 
 ment; namely, that Great Britain was 
 expected not to interfere to take Texas 
 out of the hands of its then existing 
 government and make it a free country. 
 But my argument, my suggestion, ia 
 this: that those gentlemen who con*- 
 1 ilr. Upshur. 
 
612 
 
 STKECII OF THE 7tii OF MAIICII. 1850. 
 
 posed the Xorthem Democracy when 
 Texas was brought into the Union saw 
 clearly that it was brought in as a slave 
 country, and brouglit in for the purpose 
 of being maintained as slave territory, 
 to the Greek Kalends. I rather think 
 the lionorable gentleman who was tiien 
 Secretary of State might, in some of 
 his correspondence with Mr. ^lurphy, 
 have suggested that it was not expedient 
 to say too much about this object, lest 
 it should create some alarm. At anj- 
 rate, Mr. Mvirphy wrote to him that 
 England was anxious to get rid of the 
 constitution of Texas, because it was a 
 constitution establishing slavery; and 
 that what tlie United States had to do 
 was to aid the people of Texas in 
 upholding their constitution ; but that 
 nothing should be said which should of- 
 fend the fanatical men of the North. 
 But, Sir, the honorable member did 
 avow this object himself, openly, boldly, 
 and manfully; he did not disguise his 
 oonduct or his motives. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun. Never, never. 
 
 What he means he is very apt to say. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun. Always, always. 
 
 And I honor him for it. 
 
 This admission of Texas was in 1845. 
 Then in 1847, flagrante hello between 
 the United States and Mexico, the prop- 
 osition I have mentioned was brought 
 forward by my friend from Greorgia, and 
 tlie Xorthern Democracy voted steadily 
 against it. Their remedy was to apply to 
 the acquisitions, after the}' should come 
 in, the Wilmot Proviso. What follows? 
 These two gentlemen,^ worthy and hon- 
 orable and influential men, (and if tliey 
 had. not been they could not have car- 
 ried the measure,) these two gentlemen, 
 members of this body, brought in Texas, 
 and by their votes they also prevented 
 the passage of the resolution of the hon- 
 orable member from Georgia, and then 
 they went home and took the lead in 
 the Free Soil party. And there they 
 Btand, Sir! They leave us here, bound 
 in honor and conscience by the resolu- 
 
 1 Messrs. Niles of Connecticut and Dix of 
 Nuw York. 
 
 tions of annexation ; they leave us here, 
 to take the odium of fulfilling the obli- 
 gations in favor of slavery which they 
 voted us into, or else the greater odimn 
 of violating those obligations, while 
 they are at home making capital and 
 rousing speeches for free soil and no 
 slavery. And therefore I say, Sir, that 
 there is not a chapter in our history, 
 respecting public measures and iiublic 
 men, more full of what would create 
 surprise, more full of what does create 
 in my mind, extreme mortification, 
 than that of the conduct of the XortL- 
 ern Democracy on this subject. 
 
 ]Mr. President, sometimes, when a 
 man is found in a new relation to 
 things around him and to other men, 
 he says the world has changed, and that 
 he has not changed. I believe. Sir, that 
 our self-respect leads us often to make 
 this declaration in regard to ourselves 
 when it is not exactly true. An indi- 
 vidual is more apt to change, perhaps, 
 than all the world around him. But 
 under the present circumstances, and 
 under the responsibility which I know I 
 incui" by what I am now stating here, 1 
 feel at liberty to recur to the various ex- 
 pressions and statements, made at vari- 
 ous times, of my own opinions and 
 resolutions respectmg the admission of 
 Texas, and all that has followed. Sir, 
 as early as ISliG, or in the early part of 
 1837, there was conversation and corre- 
 spondence between myself and some 
 private friends on this project of annex- 
 ing Texas to the United States ; and an 
 honorable gentleman with whom I have 
 had a long acquaintance, a friend of 
 mine, now perhaps in this chamber. 1 
 mean General Hamilton, of Soutli Caro- 
 lina, was pri\T to that correspondence. 
 1 had voted for the recogni tion of Texan 
 independence, because I believed it to 
 be an existing fact, surprising and as- 
 tonishing as it was, and I wislicd well to 
 the new republic ; but I manifested from 
 the first utter opposition to bringing her, 
 with her slave territory, into the Union. 
 1 happened, in 1837, to make a public 
 address to political friends in New York, 
 and I then stated my sentiments njion 
 the subject. It was tlie first time that 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 613 
 
 r hart occasion to advert to it ; and T will 
 ask a friend near mo to have the kind- 
 ness to read an extract from the speech 
 made by me on that occasion. It was 
 delivered in Niblo's Saloon, in 18.37. 
 
 Mi Greene then read tlie followiiifj; ex- 
 tr;ut from the speech o£ Mr. Webster to 
 which he referred: — 
 
 " Gentlemen, we all see that, by whomso- 
 ever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slave- 
 holduig country ; and I frankly avow my 
 entire unwiilinoness to do any thing that 
 shall extend the slavery of the African 
 race on this continent, or add other slave- 
 holding States to the Union. Wiien I say 
 that I regard slavery in itself as a great 
 moral, social, and political evil, I only use 
 language which has been adopted by dis- 
 tinguished men, themselves citizens of slave- 
 holding States. I shall do nothing, there- 
 fore, to favor or encourage its further ex- 
 tension. We have slavery already amongst 
 us. The Constitution found it in the Union ; 
 it recognized it, and gave it solemn guaran- 
 ties. To the full extent of these guaran- 
 ties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, 
 and by the Constitution. All the stipula- 
 tions contained in the Constitution in favor 
 of the slave-holding States which are al- 
 ready in the Union ought to be fulfilled, 
 and, so far as depeiuls on me, shall be ful- 
 filled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to 
 the exactness of their letter. Slavery, as 
 it exists in the States, is beyond the reach 
 of Congress. It is a concern of the States 
 themselves ; they have never submitted it 
 to Congress, and Congress has no rightful 
 power over it. I shall concur, therefore, 
 in no act, no measure, no menace, no indi- 
 cation of purpose, which shall interfere or 
 threaten to interfere with the exclusive 
 authority of the several States over the 
 subject of slavery as it exists within their 
 respective limits. All this appears to me 
 to be matter of plain and imperative duty. 
 
 " But when we come to speak of admit- 
 'dng new States, the subject assumes an en- 
 tn^?-y ilifferent aspect. Our rights and our 
 duties are then both different. . . . 
 
 " I see, therefore, no political necessity 
 for the annexation of Texas to the Union ; 
 no advantages to be derived from it ; and 
 objections to it of a strong, and, in my 
 judgment, decisive character." 
 
 I have nothing, Sir, to add to, or to 
 take from, tliose sentiments. That 
 speech, the Senate will perceive, was 
 
 made in 18.37. The purpose of imme- 
 diately annexing Texas at that time 
 was abandoned or postponed; and it 
 was not revived with any vigor for some 
 years. In the mean time it happened 
 that I had become a member of the 
 executive administration, and was for 
 a short period in the Department of 
 State. The annexation of Texas was 
 a subject of conversation, not confiden- 
 tial, with the President and heads of 
 departments, as well as with other pub- 
 lic men. Xo serious attempt was then 
 made, however, to bring it about. I 
 left the Department of State in ^lay, 
 1813, and .shortly after I learned, though 
 by means which were no way connected 
 with official information, that a de- 
 sign had been taken up of bringing 
 Texas, with her slave territory and 
 po|-Hilation, into this Union. I was In 
 A^'ashing•ton at the time, and persons 
 are now here who will remember that 
 we had an arranged meeting for conver- 
 sation upon it. I went home to IMassa- 
 chusetts and proclaimed the existence 
 of that purpose, but I could get no au- 
 dience and but little attention. Some 
 did not believe it, and some were too 
 much engaged in their own pursuits to 
 give it any heed. They had gone to 
 their farms or to their merchandise, and 
 it was impossible to arouse any feeling 
 in New England, or in Massachusetts, 
 that should combine the two great po- 
 litical parties against this annexation; 
 and, indeed, there was no hope of bring •• 
 ins the Northern Democracy into that 
 view, for their leaning was all the other 
 way. But, Sir, even with Whigs, and 
 leading Whigs, I am ashamed to say, 
 there was a great indifference towards 
 the admission of Texas, with slave ter- 
 ritory, into this Union. 
 
 The project went on. I was then out 
 of Congress. The annexation resolu- 
 tions passed on the 1st of March, 18-15; 
 the legislatui-e of Texas complied with 
 the conditions and accepted the guaran- 
 ties ; for the language of the resolution 
 is, that Texas is to come in " upon the 
 conditions and under the guaranties 
 herein prescribed." I was returned to 
 the Senate in March. 1815, and was 
 
614 
 
 SPEECH OF THE Txu OF MARCH, 1850, 
 
 here in December following, when the 
 acceptance by Texas of the conditions 
 proposed by Congress was communi- 
 cated to us by the President, and an 
 act for the consummation of the union 
 was laid before the two houses. The 
 connection was then not completed. A 
 final law, doing the deed of annexation 
 ultimately, had not been passed; and 
 when it was put ujion its final passage 
 here, I expressed my opposition to it, 
 and recorded my vote in the negative; 
 and there that vote stands, with the ob- 
 servations that I made upon that occa- 
 sion.^ Xor is this the only occasion on 
 which I have expressed mj'self to the 
 same effect. It has happened that, be- 
 tween 1837 and this time, on various 
 occasions, I have expressed my entire 
 opposition to the admission of slave 
 States, or the acquisition of new slave 
 territories, to be added to the United 
 States. I know, Sir, no change in my 
 own sentiments, or mj' own purposes, 
 in that respect. I will now ask my 
 friend from Rhode Island to read an- 
 other extract from a speech of mine 
 made at a Whig Convention in Spring- 
 field, Massachusetts, in the month of 
 September, 1847. 
 
 Mr. Greene here read the following 
 extract: — 
 
 " We hear much just now of a panacea 
 for the clangers and evils of slavery and 
 slave annexation, which they call the 
 ' Wilmot Proviso.' Tiiat certainly is a 
 just sentiment, but it is not a sentiment to 
 found any new party upon. It is not a 
 sentiment on which Massachusetts Whigs 
 differ. There is not a man in tliis hall who 
 kolds to it more firmly than I do, nor one 
 who adheres to it more than anotlier. 
 
 " I feel some little interest in this n\atter, 
 Sir. Did not I connnit myself in \6ol to 
 the whole doctrine, fully, entirely? And 
 I must be i)ormitted to say that I cannot 
 quite consent that more recent discoverers 
 sliould claim the merit and take out a 
 patent. 
 
 " I deny the priority of their invention. 
 Allow me to say, Sir, it is not their 
 thunder. . . . 
 
 " We are to use the first and the last and 
 
 1 See the remarks on the Admissiou of Texas, 
 in Webster's Works, Vol. \'. p. 55. 
 
 every occasion which offers to oppose tb» 
 extension of slave power. 
 
 " But I speak of it here, as in Congress, 
 as a political question, a question for 
 statesmen to act upon. We must so re- 
 gard it. I certainly do not mean to say 
 that it is less important in a moral point of 
 view, that it is not more important in many 
 other points of view ; but as a legislator, 
 or in any official cai)acity, I must look at 
 it, consider it, and decide it as a matter of 
 political action." 
 
 On other occasions, in debates here, 
 I have expressed my determination to 
 vote for no acquisition, cession, or an- 
 nexation, north or south, east or west. 
 My opinion has been, that we have ter- 
 ritoiy enough, and that we should 
 follow the Spartan maxim, " Improve, 
 adorn what j-ou have," seek no fur- 
 ther. I think that it was in some 
 observations that I made on the tliree- 
 million loan bill that I avowed this sen- 
 timent. In short. Sir, it has been 
 avowed quite as often, in as many 
 places, and before as many assemblies, 
 as any humble opinions of mine ought 
 to be avowed. 
 
 But now that, under certain condi- 
 tions, Texas is in the Union, with all her 
 territory, as a slave State, with a solemn 
 pledge, also, that, if she shall be di- 
 vided into many States, those States 
 may come in as slave States south of 
 36° 30', how are we to deal with this 
 subject? I know no way of honest 
 legislation, when the proper time comes 
 for the enactment, but to carry into 
 effect all tliat we have stipulated to do. 
 I do not entirely agree with my honor- 
 able friend from 4'ennessee,^ that, as 
 soon as the time comes when she is en- 
 titled to another representative, we 
 should create a new State. On former 
 occasions, in creating new States out cf 
 territories, we have generally gone ujion 
 the idea that, wlien the population of 
 the territory amounts to about sixty 
 thousaiul, we would consent to its ad- 
 mission as a State. But it is quite a 
 different thing when a State is divided, 
 and two or more States made out of it. 
 It does not follow in such a case tliat 
 1 Mr. lUll. 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 615 
 
 the same rule of apportionment should 
 be applied. That, however, is a 
 matter for the consideration of Con- 
 gress, when the proper time arrives. I 
 may not then be here ; I may have no 
 vote to give on the occasion ; but I wish 
 it to be distinctly understood, that, 
 according to my view of the matter, this 
 government is solemnly pledged, by law 
 and contract, to create new States out 
 of Texas, with her consent, when her 
 population shall justify and call for such 
 a proceeding, and, so far as such States 
 are formed out of Texan territory lying 
 south of 36° 30', to let them come in as 
 slave States. That is the meaning of 
 the contract which our friends, the 
 Xorthern Democracy, have left us to 
 fulfil; and I, for one, mean to fulfil it, 
 because I will not violate the faith of 
 the government. What I mean to say 
 is, that the time for the admission of 
 new^ States formed out of Texas, the 
 number of such States, their bounda- 
 ries, the reiiuisite amount of popula- 
 tion, and all other things connected 
 with the admission, are in the free dis- 
 cretion of Congress, except this; to wit, 
 that, when new States formed out of 
 Texas are to be admitted, they have a 
 right, by legal stipulation and contract, 
 to come in as slave States. 
 
 Xow, as to California and New Mex- 
 ico, I hold slavery to be excluded from 
 those territories by a law even superior 
 to that which admits and sanctions it in 
 Texas. I mean the law of nature, of 
 physical geography, the law of the for- 
 mation of the earth. That law settles 
 for ever, with a strength beyond all 
 terms of human enactment, that slavery 
 cannot exist in California or Xew Mex- 
 ico. Understand me, Sir; I mean sla- 
 very as we regard it ; the slavery of the 
 colored race as it exists in the Southern 
 States. I shall not discuss the point, 
 but leave it to the learned gentlemen 
 who have undertaken to discuss it; but 
 I suppose there is no slavery of that 
 description in California now. I under- 
 stand that peonism, a sort of penal ser- 
 vitude, exists there, or rather a sort of 
 voluntary sale of a man and his off- 
 spring for debt, an arrangement of a 
 
 peculiar nature known to the law of 
 Mexico. But what I mean to say is, 
 that it is as impossible that African 
 slavery, as we see it among us, .should 
 find its way, or be introduced, into 
 California and New Mexico, as any 
 other natural impossibility. California 
 and New iSIexico are Asiatic in their 
 formation and scenery. They are com- 
 posed of vast ridges of mountains, of 
 great height, with broken ridges and 
 deep valleys. The sides of these moun- 
 tains are enth-ely barren; their tops 
 capped by perennial snow. There may 
 be in California, now made free by its 
 constitution, and no doubt there are, 
 some tracts of valuable land. But it is 
 not so in New ]\Iexico. Pray, what is 
 the evidence which every gentleman 
 must have obtained on this subject, 
 from information sought by himself 
 or communicated by others? I have 
 inquired and read all I could find, in 
 order to acquire information on this 
 important subject. What is there in 
 New Mexico that could, by any possi- 
 bility, induce anybody to go there with 
 slaves? There are some narrow strips 
 of tillable land on the borders of the 
 rivers ; but the rivers themselves dry up 
 before midsummer is gone. All that 
 the people can do in that region is to 
 raise some little articles, some little 
 wheat for their tortillas, and that by 
 irrigation. And who expects to see a 
 hundred black men cultivating tobacco, 
 corn, cotton, rice, or any thing else, on 
 lands in New Mexico, made fertile only 
 by irrigation? 
 
 I look upon it, therefore, as a fixed 
 fact, to use the current expression of 
 the day, that both California and New 
 ^lexico are destined to be free, so far as 
 they are settled at all, which I believe, 
 in regard to New ^lexico, will be but 
 partially for a great length of time; 
 free by the arrangement of things or- 
 dained by the Power above us. I have 
 therefore to say, in this respect also, 
 that this countiy is fixed for freedom, 
 to as many persons as shall ever live in 
 it, by a less repealable law than that 
 which attaches to the right of holding 
 slaves in Texas; and I will say further. 
 
616 
 
 SPEECH OF THE 7tu OF MARCH, 1850, 
 
 that, if a resolution or a bill were now 
 before us, to provide a territorial gov- 
 ernment for Xew Mexico, I would not 
 vote to put any prohibition into it what- 
 ever. Such a prohibition would be idle, 
 as it respects any effect it would have 
 upor the territory; and I would not 
 take pains iiselessly to reaffiim an ordi- 
 lance of natiire, nor to re-enact the will 
 f)f God I would put in no Wilmot 
 Proviso for the mere purpose of a taunt 
 or a reproach. I would put into it no 
 evidence of tlie votes of superior jiower, 
 exercised for no purpose but to wound 
 the pride, whether a just and a rational 
 pride, or an irrational pride, of the citi- 
 zens of the Southern States. I have no 
 such object, no such purpose. They 
 would think it a taunt, an indignitj'; 
 they would think it to be an act taking 
 away from them what they regard as a 
 proper equality of privilege. Whether 
 they expect to realize any benefit from 
 it or not, they would think it at least a 
 plain theoretic wrong; that something 
 more or less derogatory to their charac- 
 ter and their rights had taken place. 
 I propose to inflict no such wound upon 
 anybody, unless something essentially 
 important to the country, and efficient 
 to the preservation of liberty and free- 
 dom, is to be effected. I repeat, there- 
 fore. Sir, and, as I do not proi:)ose to 
 address the Senate often on this subject, 
 I repeat it because I wish it to be dis- 
 tinctly understood, that, for the reasons 
 stated, if a proposition were now here to 
 establish a government for Xew Mexico, 
 and it was moved to insert a provision 
 for a prohibition of slavery, I would not 
 VDte for it. 
 
 Sir, if we were now making a gov- 
 ernment for New Mexico, and anybody 
 sliould propose a Wilmot Proviso, I 
 should treat it exactly as Mr. Polk 
 treated that provision for excluding sla- 
 very from Oregon. Mr. Polk was known 
 to be in opinion decidedly averse to the 
 Wilmot Proviso ; but he felt the neces- 
 sity of establishing a government for the 
 Territory of Oregon. The proviso was 
 in the bill, but lie knew it would be en- 
 tirely nugatoiy; and, since it must be 
 entirely nugatory, since it took away no 
 
 right, no describable, no tangible, no 
 appreciable right of the South, he said 
 he would sign the bill for the sake of 
 enacting a law to form a government in 
 that Territory, and let that entirely use- 
 less, and, in that connection, entirely 
 senseless, proviso remain. Sir, we hear 
 occasionally of the annexation of Can- 
 ada ; and if there be any man, any of the 
 Northern Democracy, or any one of the 
 Free Soil party, who supposes it neces- 
 sary to insert a Wilmot Proviso in a 
 territorial government for Xew ^lexico, 
 that man would of course be of opinion 
 that it is necessary to protect the ever- 
 lasting snows of Canada fi-om the foot 
 of slavery by the same overspreading 
 wing of an act of Congress. Sir, wher- 
 ever there is a substantive good to be 
 done, whereAer there is a foot of land to 
 be prevented from becoming slave terri- 
 tory, I am ready to assert the princi- 
 ple of the exclusion of slaver}-. I am 
 pledged to it from the year 1S37; I have 
 been pledged to it again and again ; and 
 I will perform those pledges; but I will 
 not do a thing unnecessarily that wounds 
 the feelings of others, or that does dis- 
 credit to my own understanding. 
 
 Xow, ]\Ir. President, I have estab- 
 lished, so far as I proposed to do so, the 
 proposition with which I set out, and 
 upon which I intend to stand or fall; 
 and that is, that the whole territory 
 within the former United States, or in 
 the newly acquired ^lexican provinces, 
 has a fixed and settled character, now 
 fixed and settled by law which cannot 
 be repealed, — in the case of Texas with- 
 out a violation of public faith, and by no 
 human power in regard to California or 
 Xew Mexico; that, therefore, under one 
 or other of these laws, everj' foot of land 
 in the States or in the Territories has 
 already received a fixed and decided 
 character. 
 
 Mr. President, in the excited times in 
 which we live, there is found to exist a '^ 
 state of crimination and recrimination 
 between the North and South. There 
 are lists of grievances produced by each , 
 and tho.se grievances, real or supposed, 
 alienate the minds of one portion of thi* 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 617 
 
 country from the other, exasperate the 
 feelings, and subdue tha sense of fra- 
 ternal alTection, patriotic love, and mu- 
 tual regard. I shall bestow a little at- 
 tention. Sir, upon these various grievan- 
 ces existing on the one side and on the 
 other. I begin with complaints of the 
 South. I will not answer, further than 
 I have, the general statements of the 
 honorable Senator from South Carolina, 
 that the North has prospered at the ex- 
 pense of the South in consequence of the 
 manner of administering this govern- 
 ment, in the collecting of its revenues, 
 and so forth. These are disputed topics, 
 and I have no inclination to enter into 
 them. But I will allude to other com- 
 plaints of the South, and especially to 
 one which has in my opinion just foun- 
 dation; and that is, that there has been 
 found at the Xorth, among individuals 
 and among legislators, a disinclination 
 to perform fidly their constitutional 
 duties in regard to the return of persons 
 bound to service who have escaped into 
 the free States. In that respect, the 
 South, in my judgment, is right, and 
 the North is wrong. Every member of 
 every Xorthern legislature is bound by 
 oath, like every other officer in the coun- 
 tiy, to support the Constitution of the 
 United States; and the article of the 
 Constitution ^ which says to these States 
 that they shall deliver up fugitives from 
 sei-vice is as binding in honor and con- 
 science as any other article. No man 
 fulfils his duty in any legislature who 
 sets himself to find excuses, evasions, 
 escapes from this constitutional obliga- 
 tion. I have always thought that the 
 Constitution addressed itself r-o the legis- 
 latures of the States or to the States 
 themselves. It says that those persons 
 escaping to other States "shall be de- 
 livered up," and I confess I have always 
 been of the opinion that it was an in- 
 junction upon the States themselves. 
 When it is said that a person escaping 
 into another State, and coming there- 
 fore within the jurisdiction of that State, 
 shall be delivered up, it seems to me the 
 import of the clause is, that the State 
 itfclf, in obedience to the Constitution, 
 i Alt. IV. Sect. 2, § 2. 
 
 shall cause him to be delivered up. 
 That is my judgment. I have always 
 entertained that opinion, and I entertain 
 it now. But when the subject, some years 
 ago, was before the Supreme Court of 
 the United States, the majority of tho 
 judges held that the power to cause fugi- 
 tives from service to be delivered up was 
 a power to be exercised under the au- 
 thority of this government. I do not 
 know, on the whole, that it may not 
 have been a fortunate decision. ^My 
 habit is to respect the result of judicial 
 deliberations and the solemnity of judi- 
 cial decisions. As it now stands, tho 
 business of seeing that these fugitives 
 are delivered up resides in the power of 
 Congress and the national judicature, 
 and my friend at the head of the Judi- 
 ciary Committee ^ has a bill on the sub- 
 ject now before the Senate, which, with 
 some amendments to it, I propo.se to 
 support, with all its provisions, to the 
 fullest extent. And I desire to call the 
 attention of all sober-minded men at 
 the North, of all conscientious men, of 
 all men who are not carried away by 
 some fanatical idea or some false im- 
 pression, to their constitutional obliga- 
 tions. I put it to all the sober and 
 sound minds at the North as a question 
 of morals and a question of conscience. 
 What right have they, in their legisla- 
 tive capacity or any other capacity, to 
 endeavor to get round this Constitution, 
 or to embarrass the free exercise of the 
 rights secured by the Constitution to the 
 persons whose slaves escape from them? 
 None at all ; none at all. Neither in 
 the forum of conscience, nor before the 
 face of the Constitution, are they, in 
 my opinion, justified in such an attempt. 
 Of course it is a matter for their consid- 
 eration. They probably, in the excite- 
 ment of the times, have not stopped to 
 consider of this. They have followed 
 what seemed to be the current of thought 
 and of motives, as the occasion arose, 
 and they have neglected to investigate 
 fully the real question, and to consider 
 their constitutional obligations; which, 
 I am sure, if they did consider, they 
 would fulfil with alacrity. I repeat, 
 1 Mr. Mason. 
 
618 
 
 SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MARCH, 1850, 
 
 therefore, Sir, that here is a well-founded 
 ground of complaint against the North, 
 which ought to be removed, which it is 
 now in the power of the different depart- 
 ments of this government to remove; 
 which calls for the enactment of proper 
 laws authorizing the judicature of this 
 government, in the several States, to do 
 all that is necessary for the recapture of 
 fugitive slaves and for their restoration 
 to tlio.se who claim them. AVherever I 
 go, and whenever I speak on the subject, 
 and when I speak here I desire to speak 
 to the whole Xorth, I say that the South 
 has been injured in this respect, and 
 has a right to complain ; and the Xorth 
 has been too careless of what I think the 
 Constitution peremptorih- and emphati- 
 cally enjoins upon her as a duty. 
 
 Complaint has been made against 
 certain resolutions that emanate from 
 legislatures at the North, and are sent 
 here to us, not only on the subject of 
 slavery in this District;, but sometimes 
 recommending Congress to consider the 
 means of abolishing slavery in the 
 States. I should be sorry to be called 
 upon to present any resolutions here 
 which could not be referable to any 
 committee or any power in Congi^ess; 
 and therefore I should be unwilling to 
 receive from the legislature of Massa- 
 chusetts any instructions to present reso- 
 lutions expressive of any opinion what- 
 ever on the subject of slavery', as it 
 exists at the present moment in the 
 States, for two reasons: first, because I 
 do not consider that the legislature of 
 Massachusetts has any thing to do with 
 it; and next, because I do not consider 
 that I, as her representative here, have 
 any thing to do with it. It has become, 
 in my opinion, quite too common; and 
 if the legislatures of the States do not 
 like that opinion, they have a great deal 
 more power to put it down than 1 have 
 to uphold it; it has become, in my opin- 
 ion, quite too common a practice for the 
 State legislatures to present resolutions 
 here on all subjects and to instruct us on 
 all subjects. There is no public man 
 that requires instruction more than I 
 do, or who requires information more 
 than I do, or desires it more heartily; 
 
 but I do not like to have it in too im- 
 perative a shape. I took notice, with 
 pleasm-e, of some remarks made upon 
 this subject, the other day, in the Sen- 
 ate of Massachusetts, by a young man 
 of talent and character, of whom the 
 best hopes may be entertained. I mean 
 Mr. Hillard. lie told the Senate of Mas- 
 sachusetts that he would vote for no in- 
 structions whatever to be forwarded to 
 members of Congress, nor for any reso- 
 lutions to be offered expressive of the 
 sense of Massachusetts as to what her 
 members of Congiess ought to do. lie 
 said that he saw no propriety in one set 
 of public servants giving instructions 
 and reading lectures to another set of 
 public servants. To his own master 
 each of them must stand or faU, and 
 that master is his constituents. I wish 
 these sentiments could become more 
 common. I have never entered into 
 the question, and never shall, as to the 
 binding force of instructions. I will, 
 however, simply say this: if there be 
 any matter pending in this body, while 
 I am a member of it, in which Massa- 
 chusetts has an interest of her own not 
 adverse to the general interests of the 
 countiy, I shall pursue her instructions 
 with jjladness of heart and with all the 
 efficiency which I can bring to the occa- 
 sion. But if the question be one which 
 affects her interest, and at the same time 
 equally affects the interests of all the 
 other States, I shall no more regard her 
 particular wishes or instructions than I 
 should regard the wishes of a man who 
 might appoint me an arbitrator or ref- 
 eree to decide some question of impor- 
 tant private right between him and liis 
 neighbor, and then instruct me to decide 
 in his favor. If ever there was a gov- 
 ernment upon earth it is this govern- 
 ment, if ever there was a body iquin 
 earth it is this body, which should con- 
 sider itself as composed by agreement of 
 all, each member appointed by some, but 
 organized by the general consent of all, 
 sitting here, under the solemn obliga- 
 tions of oath and conscience, to do that 
 which they think to be best for the good 
 of the whole. 
 
 Then, Sir, there are the Abolition 
 
FOR Tin-: CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 619 
 
 Boeieties, of which T am n^^yilling to 
 speak, but in regaid to which I have 
 very clear notions and opinions. I do 
 not think tliem usefuh I think their 
 operations for the last twenty years 
 have produced nothing good or valua- 
 ble. At the same time, I believe thou- 
 sands of their members to be honest 
 and good men, perfectly well-meaning 
 men. They have excited feelings ; they 
 think they must dp something for the 
 cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of 
 action, they do not see what else they 
 can do than to contribute to an Aboli- 
 tion press, or an Abolition society, or to 
 pay an Abolition lecturer. I do not 
 mean to impute gi'oss motives even to 
 the leaders of these societies; but I am 
 not blind to the consequences of their 
 pivoceedings. I cannot but see what 
 mischiefs their interference with the 
 South has produced. And is it not 
 plain to every man? Let any gentle- 
 man who entertains doubts on this 
 ]ioint recur to the debates in the Vir- 
 ginia House of Delegates in 1832, 
 and he will see with what freedom 
 a proposition made by Mr. Jefferson 
 Randolph for the gradual abolition of 
 slavery was discussed in that body. 
 Every one spoke of slavery as he 
 thought; very ignominious and dispar- 
 aging names and epithets were applied 
 to it. The debates in the House of 
 Delegates on that occasion, I believe, 
 were all published. They were read by 
 every colored man who could read ; and 
 to those who could not read, those de- 
 bates were read by others. At that time 
 Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to 
 discuss this question, and to let that 
 part of her population know as much 
 of the discussion as they could learn. 
 That was in 1832. As has been said 
 by the honorable member from South 
 Carolina, these Abolition societies com- 
 menced their course of action in 1835. 
 It is said, I do not know how true it 
 may be, that they sent incendiary pub- 
 lications into the slave States; at any 
 rate, they attempted to arouse, and did 
 arouse, a very strong feeling; in other 
 words, they created great agitation in the 
 North against Southern slavery. Well, 
 
 wliat was the result ? The bonds of 
 the slaves were bound more firmly than 
 before, their rivets were more strongly 
 fastened. Public opinion, which in Vir- 
 ginia had begun to be exhibited against 
 slavery, and was opening out for the dis- 
 cussion of the question, drew back and 
 shut itself up in its castle. I wish to 
 know whether anybody in Virginia can 
 now talk openly as Mr. Randolph, Gov- 
 ernor McDowell, and others talked ia 
 1832, and sent their remarks to the 
 press? AV^e all know the fact, and we 
 all know the cause ; and every thing 
 that these agitating people have done 
 has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain, 
 not to set free, but to bind faster, the 
 slave population of the South. ^ 
 
 Again, Sir, the violence of the Xorth- 
 ern press is complained of. The press 
 violent! Why, Sir, the press is violent 
 everywhere. There are outrageous re- 
 proaches in the Xorth against the South, 
 and there are reproaches as vehement in 
 the South against the Xorth. Sir, the 
 extremists of both parts of this comitry 
 are violent; they mistake loud and vio- 
 lent talk for eloquence and for reason. 
 They think that he who talks loudest 
 reasons best. And this we must ex- 
 pect, when the press is free, as it is 
 here, and I trust always will be; for, 
 with all its licentiousness and all its 
 evil, the entire and absolute freedom of 
 the press is essential to the preservation 
 of government on the basis of a free 
 constitution. Wherever it exists there 
 will be foolish and violent paragraphs in 
 the newspapers, as there are, I am sorry 
 to say, foolish and violent speeches in 
 both houses of Congress. In truth, Sir, 
 I must say that, in my opinion, the 
 vernacular tongue of the country has 
 become greatly vitiated, depraved, and 
 corrupted by the style of our Congres- 
 sional debates. And if it were possible 
 for those debates to vitiate the princii>le3 
 of the people as much as they have de- 
 praved their tastes, I should ciy out, 
 "God save the Republic! " 
 
 Well, in all this I see no solid griev- 
 ance, no grievance presented by the 
 South, within the redress of the gov- 
 1 See Note at the end of the Speech- 
 
1)20 
 
 SPEECH OF THE 7th OF MAKCH, 1850, 
 
 emment, but the single one to -which I 
 have referred; and that is, the want of 
 a proper regard to the injunction of the 
 Con.*titutiou fa"- the delivery of fugitive 
 slaves. 
 
 There are also complaints of the Xorth 
 against the South. I need not go over 
 them particularly. The first and gravest 
 is, that the Xorth adopted the Constitu- 
 tion, recognizing the existence of slave it 
 ui in-: .States, and recognizing the right, 
 to a certain extent, of the representation 
 of slaves in Congi'ess, under a state of 
 sentiment and expectation which does 
 not now exist; and that, by events, by 
 circumstances, by the eagerness of the 
 South to acquire territoiy and extend 
 her slave population, the North finds 
 itself, in regard to the relative influence 
 of the South and the Xorth, of the free 
 States and the slave States, where it 
 never did expect to find itself when 
 they agreed to the compact of the Con- 
 stitution. They complain, therefore, 
 that, instead of slavery being regarded 
 as an evil, as it was then, an evil which 
 all hoped would be extinguished grad- 
 ually, it is now regarded by the South 
 as an institution to be cherished, and 
 preserved, and extended; an institution 
 which the South has already extended 
 to the utmost of her power by the acqui- 
 sition of new territory. 
 
 Well, then, passing from that, every- 
 body in the Xorth reads ; and everj'- 
 body reads whatsoever the newspapers 
 contain; and the newspapers, some of 
 them, especially those presses to which 
 I have alluded, are careful to spread 
 about among the people everj* reproach- 
 ful sentiment uttered by any Southern 
 man bearing at all against the Xorth; 
 ever thing that is calculated to exas- 
 perate and to alienate ; and there are 
 many such things, as everybody will 
 admit, from the South, or some portion 
 of it, which are disseminated among 
 the reading people; and they do exas- 
 perate, and alienate, and produce a most 
 UJischievous effect upon the public mind 
 at the North. Sir, I would not notice 
 things of this sort appearing in oV>scure 
 qiuirters; but one thing has occurred in 
 this debate which struck me very forci- 
 
 bly. An honorable member from Lou- 
 isiana addressed us the other day on thia 
 suljject. I suppose there is not a more 
 amiable and worthy gentleman in this 
 chamber, nor a gentleman who would be 
 more slow to give offence to anybody, 
 and he did not mean in his remarks to 
 give offence. But what did he say? 
 Why, Sir, he took pains to run a con- 
 trast between the slaves of the South 
 and the laboring people of the Xorth, 
 giving the preference, in all points of 
 condition, and comfort, and hajipiness, 
 to the slaves of the South. The honor- 
 able member, doubtless, did not suppose 
 that he gave any offence, or did any in- 
 justice. He was merely expressing his 
 opinion. But does he know how re- 
 marks of that sort will be received by 
 the laboring people of the Xorth ? 
 Why, who are the laboring peo]>le of 
 the Xorth? They are the whole Xorth. 
 They are the people who till their own 
 farms with their own hands; freehold- 
 ers, educated men, independent men. 
 Let me say. Sir, that five sixths of the 
 whole property of the Xorth is in the 
 hands of the laborers of the Xorth; 
 they cultivate their farms, they educate 
 their children, they provide the means 
 of independence. If they are not free- 
 holders, they earn wages; these wages 
 accumulate, are turned into capital, into 
 new freeholds, and small capitalists are 
 created. Such is the case, and such 
 the course of things, among the indus- 
 trious and frugal. And what can the.^e 
 people think when so respectable and 
 worthy a gentleman as the member from 
 Louisiana undertakes to prove that the 
 absolute ignorance and the abject sla- 
 very of the South are more in conformity 
 with the high purposes and destiny of 
 immortal, rational human beings, than 
 the educated, the independent free labor 
 of the Xorth? 
 
 There is a more tangible and irritat- 
 ing cause of grievance at the North. 
 Free blacks are constantly employed in 
 the ves.sels of the Xorth, generally as 
 cooks or stewards. When the vei>sel 
 arrives at a Southern port, these free 
 coloretl men are taken on shore, by the 
 police or municipal authority, impris* 
 
FOR TIIK COXSTITUTIOX AND 1 UK UXin>. 
 
 621 
 
 oned, and kejit in prison till the vessel is 
 again ready to sail. Tlii.s is not only irri- 
 tating, but exceedingly inijustifiable and 
 oppressive. ^Ir. Hoar's mission, some 
 time ago, to South Carolina, was a -well- 
 intended effort to remove this cause of 
 complaint. The Xorth thinks such im- 
 prisonments illegal and unconstitutional ; 
 and as ihe cases occu'- constantly and 
 frequently, they regard it as a great 
 giievance. 
 
 Now, Sir, so far as any of these griev- 
 ances have their foundation in matters 
 of law, they can be redressed, and ought 
 to be redressed ; and so far as they have 
 their foundation in matters of opinion, 
 in sentiment, in mutual crimination and 
 recrimination, all that we can do is to 
 endeavor to allay the agitation, and cul- 
 tivate a better feeling and more fraternal 
 sentiments between the South and the 
 North. 
 
 Mr. President, I should much prefer 
 to have heard from every member on 
 this floor declarations of opinion that 
 this Union could never be dissolved, than 
 the declaration of opinion by anybody, 
 that, in any case, under the pressure of 
 any circumstances, such a dissolution 
 was possible. I hear with distress and 
 anguish the word " secession," espe- 
 cially when it falls from the lips of 
 those who are patriotic, and known to 
 the country, and known all over the 
 world, for their political services. Se- 
 cession ! Peaceable secession ! Sir, your 
 eyes and mine are never destined to see 
 that miracle. The dismemberment of 
 this vast country without convulsion'! 
 The breaking up of the fountains of the 
 great deep without ruffling the smi ace ! 
 Who is so foolish, I beg everybody's 
 pardon, as to expect to see any such 
 thing? Sir, he who sees these States, 
 now revolving in harmony around a 
 common centre, and expects to see them 
 quit their places and fly off without con- 
 vulsion, may look the next hour to see 
 the heavenly bodies rush from their 
 spheres, and jostle against each other 
 in the realms of space, without causing 
 the wreck of the universe. There can 
 be no such thing as a peaceable seces- 
 sion. Peaceable secession is an utter 
 
 impossibility. Is the great Constitution 
 under which we live, covering this whole 
 country, — is it to be thawed and melted 
 away by secession, as the snows on the 
 mountain melt under the influence of a 
 vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, 
 and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will 
 not state what might produce the dis- 
 ruption of the Union; but. Sir, I see as 
 plainly as I see the sun in heaven what 
 that disruption itself must produce; I 
 see that it must produce war, and such 
 a war as I wull not describe, in its twofolff 
 character. 
 
 Peaceable secession ! Peaceable seces 
 sion ! The concurrent agreement of all 
 the members of this great republic to 
 separate! A voluntary separation, with 
 alimony on one side and on the other. 
 "Why, what would be the result? Where 
 is the line to be drawn? What States 
 are to secede? What is to remain Amer- 
 ican? What am I to be? An American 
 no longer? Am I to become a sectional 
 man, a local man. a separatist, with no 
 country in connnon with the gentlemen 
 who sit around me here, or who fill the 
 other house of Congress? Heaven for- 
 bid ! Where is the flag of the republic 
 to remain? A\liere is the eagle still to 
 tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, 
 and fall to the ground? Why, Sir, our 
 ancestors, our fathers and our grand- 
 fathers, those of them that are yet living 
 amongst us with prolonged lives, would 
 rebuke and reproach us; and our chil- 
 dren and our grandchildren would C17 
 out shame upon us, if we of this genera- 
 tion should dishonor these ensigns of the 
 power of the government and the har- 
 mony of that Union which is eveiy day 
 felt among us with so much joy and 
 gratitude. What is to become of the 
 army? What is to become of the uavyi 
 What is to become of the public lands" 
 IIow is each of the thirty States to defend 
 itself ? I know, although the idea has 
 not been stated distinctly, there is to be, 
 or it is supposed possible that there wUl 
 be, a Southern Confederacy. I do not 
 mean, when I allude to this statement, 
 that any one seriously contemplat<3s such 
 a state of things. I do not mean to 
 say that it is true, but I have heavd it 
 
G22 
 
 SPEECH OF THE Ttii OF MAKCH, 1850, 
 
 suggested elsewhere, that the idea has 
 been entertained, that, after the dissolu- 
 tion of tliis Union, a Southern Confeder- 
 acy might be formed. I am sorry, Tiir, 
 that it has ever been thought of, talked 
 of, or dreamed of, in the ^sildest flights 
 of human imagination. But the idea, 
 6o far as it exists, must be of a separa- 
 tion, assigning the slave States to one 
 Bide and the free States to the other. 
 Sir, I may express myself too strongly, 
 perhaps, but there are impossibilities in 
 the natural as veil as in the physical 
 world, and I hold the idea of a separa- 
 tion of these States, those that are free 
 to form one government, and those that 
 are slave-holding to form another, as 
 such an impossibility. We could not 
 separate the States by any such line, if 
 we were to draw it. We could not sit 
 down here to-day and draw a line of sep- 
 aration that would satisfy any five men 
 in the country. There are natural causes 
 that would keei? and tie us together, and 
 there are social and domestic relations 
 which we could not break if we would, 
 and which we should not if we could. 
 
 Sir, nobody can look over the face of 
 this country at the present moment, no- 
 body can see where its population is the 
 most dense and gi'owing, without being 
 ready to admit, and compelled to admit, 
 that erelong the strength of America 
 will be in the Valley of the ^Mississippi. 
 Well, now, Sir, I beg to inquire what 
 the wildest enthusiast has to say on the 
 possibility of cutting that river in two, 
 and leaving free States at its source and 
 on its branches, and slave States down 
 near its mouth, each forming a .separate 
 gOA'ernment? Pray, Sir, let me say to 
 the people of this country, that tliese 
 things are worthy of their pondering and 
 of their consideration. Here, Sir, are 
 five millions of freemen in the free States 
 north of the river Ohio. Can anybody 
 suppose that this population can be .sev- 
 ered, by a line that divides them from 
 the territory of a foreign and an alien 
 governint'nt, down somewhere, the Lord 
 knows where, upon the lower banks of 
 the Mississippi? A\'hat would become 
 of Missouri V Will she join the arroii- 
 (ILfsemcnt of tlie slave States ? Shall 
 
 the man from the Yellowstone and tne 
 Platte be connected, in the new republic, 
 with the man who lives on the southern 
 extremity of the Cape of Florida ? Sir, 
 I am ashamed to pursue this line of re- 
 mark. I dislike it, I have an utter dis- 
 gust for it. I would rather hear of 
 natural blasts and mildews, war, pesti- 
 lence, and famine, than to hear gentle- 
 men talk of secession. To break up this 
 great government! to dismember this 
 glorious country! to astonish Europe 
 with an act of folly such as Europe for 
 tAvo centuries has never beheld in any 
 government or any people! Xo, Sir! 
 no. Sir! There will be no secession 1 
 Gentlemen are not serious when they 
 talk of secession. 
 
 Sir, I hear there is to be a convention 
 held at Xashville. I am bound to be- 
 lieve that, if worthy gentlemen meet at 
 Xashville in convention, their object 
 will be to adopt conciliatory counsels ; 
 to advise the South to forbearance and 
 moderation, and to advise the Xorth to 
 forbearance and moderation ; and to in- 
 culcate principles of brotherly love and 
 affection, and attachment to the Consti- 
 tution of the country as it now is. I 
 believe, if the convention meet at all. it 
 will be for this purpose; for certainly, 
 if they meet for any purpose hostile to 
 the Union, they have been singularly 
 inappropriate in their selection of a place. 
 I remember. Sir, that, when the treaty 
 of Amiens was concluded between France 
 and England, a sturdy Englishman and 
 a distinguished orator, who regarderl the 
 conditions of the peace as ignominious 
 to England, said in the House of Com- 
 mons, that, if King William could know 
 the terms of that treaty, he would turn 
 in his coffin! Let me commend tliis 
 saying of ^Ir. Windham, in all its em- 
 phasis and in all its force, to any per- 
 sons who shall meet at Xashville for the 
 purpose of concerting measures for the 
 overthrow of this Union over the bones 
 of Andrew Jackson ! 
 
 Sir, I wish now to make two remarks, 
 and hasten to a conclusion. I wish to 
 say, in regard to Texas, that if it should 
 be hereafter, at any time, the pleasure 
 of the s:overnment of Texas to cede to 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 C'2'.^ 
 
 the United States a portion, larger or 
 firaaller, of her territory which lies adja- 
 cent to Xew Mexico, and north of 3(3° 
 30' of north latitude, to be formed into 
 free States, for a fair equivalent in 
 money or in the paj-ment of her debt, 
 I think it an object well worthy the con- 
 siilcration of Congress, and I shall be 
 jiappy to concur in it myself, if I should 
 have a connection with the government 
 at that time. 
 
 I have one other remark to make. In 
 my observations upon slavery as it has 
 existed in this country, and as it now 
 exists, I have expressed no opinion of 
 the mode of its extinguishment or melio- 
 ration. I will say, however, though I 
 have nothing to propose, because I do 
 not deem myself so competent as other 
 gentlemen to take any lead on this sub- 
 ject, that if any gentleman from the 
 South shall propose a scheme, to be car- 
 ried on by this government upon a large 
 scale, for the transportation of free col- 
 ored people to any colony or any place 
 in the world, I should be quite disposed 
 to incur almost any degree of expense to 
 accomplish that object. Nay, Sir, fol- 
 lowing an example set more than twenty 
 years ago by a great man,^ then a Sen- 
 ator from Xew York, 1 would return to 
 Virginia, and through her to the whole 
 South, the money received from the lands 
 and territories ceded by her to this gov- 
 ernment, for any such purpose as to re- 
 move, in whole or in part, or in any 
 ^•ay to diminish or deal beneficially with, 
 the free colored population of the South- 
 ern States. I have said that I honor 
 Virginia for her cession of this territory. 
 There have been received into the treas- 
 ury of the United States eighty millions 
 of dollars, the proceeds of the sales of 
 the public lands ceded by her. If the 
 residue .should be sold at the same rate, 
 the whole aggregate will exceed two hun- 
 dred millions of dollars. If Virginia 
 and the South see fit to adopt any prop- 
 osition to relieve themselves from tlie 
 free people of color among them, or such 
 as may be made free, they have my full 
 consent that the government shall pay 
 them any smn of money out of the pro- 
 1 Mr. Rufus King. 
 
 ceeds of that cession which ma} be ade- 
 quate to the purpose. 
 
 And now, Mr. President, I draw these 
 observations to a close. I have spoken 
 freely, and I meant to do so. I have 
 sought to make no display. I have 
 sought to enliven the occasion by no an- 
 inuited discussion, nor have I attempted 
 any train of elaborate argument. I have 
 w'ished only to speak my sentiments, 
 fully and at length, being desirous, once 
 and for all, to let the Senate know, and 
 to let the countiy know, the opinions 
 and sentiments w-hich I entertain on all 
 these subjects. These opinions are not 
 likely to be suddenly changed. If there 
 be any future service that I can render 
 to the country, consistently with these 
 sentiments and opinions, I shall cheer- 
 fully render it. If there be not, I shall 
 still be glad to have had an opportu- 
 nity to disburden myself from the bot 
 torn of my heart, and to make known 
 every political sentiment that therein 
 exists. 
 
 And now, Mr. President, instead of 
 speaking of the possibility or utility of 
 secession, instead of dwelling in those 
 caverns of darkness, instead of groping 
 with those ideas so full of all that is 
 horrid and horrible, let us come out into 
 the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh 
 air of Liberty and Union; let us cherish 
 tliose hopes which belong to us ; let us 
 devote ourselves to those great objects 
 that are fit for our consideration and 
 our action ; let us raise our conceptions 
 to the magnitude and tlie importance of 
 the duties that devolve upon us; let our 
 comprehension be as broad as the coun- 
 try for which we act, our aspirations as 
 high as its certain destiny; let us not be 
 pygmies in a case that calls for men 
 Never did there devolve on any genera- 
 tion of men higher trusts than now 
 devolve upon us, for the preservation of 
 this Constitution and the harmony and 
 peace of all who are destined to live 
 untlor it. Let us make our generation 
 one of the sti-ongest and brightest links 
 in that golden chain which is destined, 
 I fondly believe, to grapple the people of 
 all the States to this Constitution for 
 ages to come. We have a great, popu- 
 
624 
 
 SPEECH OF THE Txu OF MARCH, 1850, 
 
 lar, constitutional government, guarded 
 oy law and by judicature, and defended 
 by the affections of the whole people. 
 No monarchical throne presses these 
 States together, no iron chain of mili- 
 tary power encircles them ; they live and 
 stand under a government popular in 
 its form, representative in its character, 
 founded upon principles of equality, 
 and so constructed, we hope, as to last 
 for ever. In all its histoiy it has been 
 beneficent; it has trodden down no 
 man's liberty; it has crushed no State. 
 Its daily respiration is liberty and pa- 
 triotism ; its yet youthful veins are full 
 of enterprise, courage, and honorable 
 
 love of glory and renown. Large be- 
 fore, the country has now, by recent 
 events, become vastly larger. This re- 
 public now extends, with a vast breadth, 
 across the whole continent. The two 
 great seas of the world wash the one 
 and the other shore. We realize, on a 
 mighty scale, the beautiful description 
 of the ornamental border of the buckler 
 of Achilles: — 
 
 "Now, the broad shield complete, the artist 
 
 crowned 
 With liis last hand, and poured the ocean 
 
 round ; 
 In livinf^ silver seemed the waves to roll, 
 And beat the buckler's verge, and bound the 
 
 whole." 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 Page 619. 
 
 Letter from Mr. Webster to the Editors of the National Intelligencer, enclosing 
 Extracts from a Letter of the late Dr. Channing. 
 
 Washinijton, Fehnmrij 15, 1851. 
 
 Messrs. Gales and Seaton : — 
 
 Having occasion recently to look over 
 some files of letters written several years 
 ago, I happened to fall on one from the late 
 Rev. Dr. W. K. riianiiintr. It eontaiiis pas- 
 sages whicli I tliiiik, eoiiiiiig from sueli a 
 source, and written at such a time, would 
 be interesting to the country. I have there- 
 fore e.xtracted them, and send them to you 
 for publication in your columns. 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 Boston, May 14, 1828. 
 Mt dear Sir : — 
 
 I wish to call your attention to a subject 
 of general interest. 
 
 A little while ago, Mr. Luiidy of Balti- 
 more, the editor of a paper called " The 
 Genius of Universal Emancipation," visited 
 tills part of the country, to stir us up to the 
 work of abolishing slavery at the Soutii, 
 and the intention is to organize societies for 
 this j)uri)ose. I know few objects into 
 wiiich 1 .should enter with more zeal, but I 
 am aware how cautiously exertions are to 
 be made for it in this i)art of the country. 
 I know that our Southern brethren inter- 
 pret every word from this region on the 
 
 subject of slavery as an expression of hos- 
 tility. I would ask if they cannot be 
 brouglit to understand us better, and if we 
 can do nny good till we remove their mis- 
 apprehensions. It seems to me that, before 
 moving in this matter, we ougiit to say to 
 them (listinctly, " We consider slavery as 
 your calamity, not your crime, and we will 
 share with you tlie burden of putting an 
 end to it. We will consent that the public 
 lands sliall be ajijiropriated to this object ; 
 or that the general government shall be 
 clothed with power to apply a portion of 
 revenue to it." 
 
 I throw out these suggestions mereh' to 
 illustrate my views. We must first let the 
 Southern States see that we are tiieir /hV»)f/s 
 in this affair; that we sympatiiize with 
 them, and, from jirinciples of patriotism 
 and ])liilaiUhropy, are willing to share the 
 toil and expense of abolishing slavery, or I 
 fear our interference will avail nothing. I 
 am the more sensitive on this subject from 
 my increased solicitude for the preservation 
 of the Union. I know no public interest 
 so important as this. I ask from the gen- 
 eral government hardly any other boon than 
 that it will hold us togetlur, and jireserve 
 ]iacilic relations and intercourse among the 
 States. I deprecate every thing which 
 sows discord and cxasi)crates sectional 
 animosities. If it will sinijdy kecj) us at 
 peace, and will maint>un in lull power the 
 
FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION. 
 
 625 
 
 national courts, for the purpose of settling 
 quietly among citizens of (iilTerent States 
 questions which miglit otlu-rwise be settled 
 by arms, I shall be satisfied. 
 
 Mj- fear in regard to our efforts against 
 slavery is, that we shall make the case 
 worse by rousing sectional ])ri(le and pas- 
 sion for its support, and that we shall only 
 break the country into two great {)arties, 
 whicii may shake the foundations of gov- 
 ern .:;ent. 
 
 I liave written to you because your situa- 
 
 tion gives you advantages which perhaps 
 no other man enjoys for ascertaining the 
 method, if any can be devised, by which we 
 may operate beneficially and safely in re- 
 gard to slavery. Appeals will probably be 
 made soon to the peojjle here, and I wish 
 that wise men would save us from the rash- 
 ness of enthusiasts, and from tiie perils to 
 which our very virtues expose us. 
 
 With great respect, your friend, 
 
 Wm. E, CHANNISe. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Websteb. 
 
 40 
 
RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 A SPEECH DELIVERED BEFORE A LARGE ASSEMBLY OF THE CITIZENS OV 
 BUFFALO AND THE COL'NTY OF ERIE, AT A PUBLIC RECEPTION ON THE 
 22d OF MAY, 1851. 
 
 I'ELLOW-ClTIZENS OF THE CiTY OF 
 
 Buffalo, — I am very glad to see you; 
 I meet you with pleasure. It is not the 
 first time that I have been in Buffalo, 
 and I have always come to it with grati- 
 fication. It is at a great distance from 
 my own home. I am thankful that cir- 
 cumstances have enabled me to be here 
 again, and I regi-et that untoward events 
 deprived me of the pleasure of being 
 with you when your distinguished fel- 
 low-citizen, the President of the United 
 States, \nsited you, and received from 
 you, as he deserved, not only a respect- 
 ful, but a cordial and enthusiastic wel- 
 come. The President of the United 
 States has been a resident among you 
 for more than half his life. He has 
 represented you in the State and na- 
 tional councils. You know him and 
 all his relations, both public and pri- 
 vate, and it would be bad taste in me 
 to say any thing of him, except that I 
 wish to say, with emphasis, that, since 
 my connection with him in the adminis- 
 tration of the government of the United 
 States, I have fully concurred with him 
 in all his great and leading measures. 
 This might be inferred from the fact 
 that 1 have been one of his ordinary ad- 
 visers. But I do not wish to let it rest 
 on that presumption ; I wish to declare 
 that the principles of the President, as 
 set forth in his annual message, his let- 
 ters, and all documents and opinions 
 which have proceeded from him, or 
 been issued by his authority, in regard 
 to the great question of the times, — all 
 these principles are my principles; and 
 
 if he is wTong in them, I am, and al- 
 ways shall be. 
 
 Gentlemen, it has been suggested to 
 me that it would be agreeable to the 
 citizens of Buffalo, and their neighbors 
 in the county of Erie, that I should 
 state to you my opinions, whatever may 
 be their value, on the present condition 
 of the country, its prospects, its hopes, 
 and its dangers; and, fellow-citizens, I 
 intend to do that, this day, and this hour, 
 as far as my strength will permit. 
 
 Gentlemen, believe me. I know where 
 I am. I know to whom I am speaking. 
 I know for whom I am speaking. I 
 know that I am here in this singularly 
 prosperous and powerfvd section of the 
 United States, Western New York, and 
 I know the character of the men who 
 inhabit Western New York. I know 
 they are sons of liberty, one and all; 
 that they sucked in liberty with their 
 mothers' milk; inherited it with their 
 blood ; that it is the subject of their daily 
 contemplation and watchful thought. 
 They are men of unusual equality of 
 condition, for a million and a half of 
 people. There are thousands of men 
 around us, and here before us, who till 
 their own soil with their own hands; 
 and others who earn their own livell 
 hood by tlieir own labor in the work- 
 shops and other places of industry ; and 
 they are independent, in principle and 
 in condition, having neither slaves nor 
 masters, and not intending to have 
 either. These are the men who con- 
 stitute, to a great extent, the people of 
 Western New York. But the school- 
 
KECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 G2T 
 
 house, Tknow, is among them. Eiluca- 
 tiou is among- tliem. They read, and 
 write, and think. Here, too, are women, 
 educated, refined, and intelligent; and 
 hero are men who know the history of 
 their country, and the laws of their 
 country, and the institutions of their 
 country; and men, lovers of liberty al- 
 ways, and yet lovers of liberty nnder 
 the Constitution of the country, and 
 who mean to maintain that Constitu- 
 tion with all their strength. I hope 
 these observations will satisfy you that 
 I know where I am, under what respon- 
 sibility I speak, and before whom I ap- 
 pear ; and I have no desire that any 
 word I shall say this day shall be with- 
 holden from you, or your children, or 
 your neighbors, or the whole world; for 
 I speak before you and before my comi- 
 try, and, if it be not too solemn to 
 say so, before the great Author of all 
 things. 
 
 Gentlemen, there is but one question 
 in this country now ; or, if there be 
 others, they are but secondary, or so 
 subordinate that they are all absorbed 
 in that great and leading question ; and 
 that is neither more nor less than this: 
 Can we preserve the union of the States, 
 not by coercion, not by military power, 
 not by angry controversies, — but can 
 we of this generation, you and I, your 
 fi'iends and my friends, — can we so 
 preserve the union of these States, by 
 such administration of the powers of 
 the Constitution as shall give content 
 and satisfaction to all who live under it, 
 and draw us together, not by military 
 power, but by the silken cords of mutual, 
 fraternal, patriotic affection? That is 
 the question, and no other. Gentlemen, 
 I believe in party distinctions. I am a 
 party man. There are questions be- 
 longing to party in which I take an 
 interest, and there are opinions enter- 
 tained by other parties which I repudi- 
 ate; but what of all that? If a house 
 be divided against itself, it will fall, and 
 crush everj'body in it. We must see 
 that we maintain the government which 
 is over us. We must see that we up- 
 hold the Constitution, and we must do 
 80 without regard to party. 
 
 Xow how did this question arise? 
 The question is for ever misstated. I 
 dare say, if you know much of me, or 
 of my course of public conduct, for the 
 last fourteen months, you have heard of 
 my attending Union meetings, and of 
 my fervent admonitions at Union meet- 
 ings. Well, what was the object of 
 those meetings? What was their pur- 
 pose? The object and pui-pose have 
 been designedly or thoughtlessly mis- 
 represented. I had an invitation, some 
 time since, to attend a Union meeting 
 in the county of Westchester; I could 
 not go, but wrote a letter. Well, some 
 wise man of the East said he did not 
 think it was very necessary to hold 
 Union meetings in Westchester. He 
 did not think there were many dis- 
 unionists about Tanytown ! And so in 
 many parts of the countiy, there is a 
 total misapprehension of the purpose 
 and object of these Union meetings. 
 Every one knows, that there is not a 
 county, or a city, or a hamlet in the 
 State of New York, that is ready to go 
 out of the Union, but only some small 
 bodies of fanatics. There is no man so 
 insane in the State, not fit for a lunatic 
 asylum, as to wish it. But that is not 
 the point. We all know that every man 
 and every neighborhood, and all cor- 
 porations, in the State of Xew York, 
 except those I have mentioned, are at- 
 tached to the Union, and have no idea 
 of withdrawing from it. But that is 
 not, I repeat, the point. The question, 
 fellow-citizens, (and I put it to you now 
 as the real question,) the question is, 
 "^^'hether you and the rest of the people 
 of the great State of Xew Y'"ork, and of 
 all the States, will so adhere to the Con- 
 stitution, will so enact and maintain 
 laws to preserve that instrument, that 
 you will not only remain in the Union 
 yourselves, but permit your brethren to 
 remain in it, and help to perpetuate it? 
 That is the question. Will you concur 
 in measures necessarj^ to maintain the 
 Union, or will you oppose such meas- 
 ures? That is the whole point of the 
 case. 
 
 There are thirty or forty members of 
 Congi'ess from New York; you have 
 
b*28 
 
 RECEPTION AT BUFFALO 
 
 your proportion in the United States 
 Senate. "We have many members of 
 Congress fiom Xew England. Will they 
 maintain the laws that are passed for 
 the administration of the Constitution, 
 aud respect the rights of the South, so 
 that the Union may be held together ; 
 and not only so that we may not go out 
 of it ourselves, which we are not in- 
 filined to do, but so that, by maintaining 
 the rights of others, they may also re- 
 main in the Union? Xow, Gentlemen, 
 permit me to say, that I speak of no 
 concessions. If the South wish any con- 
 cession from me, they will not get it; 
 not a hair's breadth of it. If they come 
 to my house for it, they will not find it, 
 and the door will be shut; I concede 
 nothing. But I say that I will maintain 
 for them, as I will maintain for you, to 
 the utmost of my power, and in the face 
 of all danger, their rights under the 
 Constitution, and your rights under the 
 Constitution. And I shall never be 
 found to falter in one or the other. It 
 is obvious to every one, and we all know 
 it, that the origin of the great disturb- 
 ance which agitates the country is the 
 existence of slavery in some of the States ; 
 but we must meet the subject; we must 
 consider it; we must deal with it ear- 
 nestly, honestly, and justly. From the 
 mouth of the St. John's to the confines 
 of Florida, there existed, in 1775, thir- 
 teen colonies of English origin, planted 
 at different times, aiid coming from dif- 
 ferent parts of England, bringing with 
 thera various habits, and establishing, 
 each for itself, institutions entirely dif- 
 ferent from the institutions which they 
 left, and in many cases from each other. 
 But they were all of English origin. 
 The English language was theirs, Shak- 
 epeare and Milton were theirs, the com- 
 mon law of England was theirs, and the 
 Christian religion was theirs; and these 
 things held them together by the force 
 of a common character. The aggre.s- 
 sions of the parent state compelled them 
 to assert their independence. They de- 
 clared independence, and that immortal 
 act, pronounced on the Ith of July, 1776, 
 made them independent. 
 
 That was an act of union by the 
 
 United States in Congress assembled. 
 But this act of itself did nothing to es- 
 tablish over them a general government. 
 They had a Congress. They had Arti- 
 cles of Confederation to prosecute the 
 war. But thus far they were still, es- 
 sentially, separate and independent each 
 of the other. They had entered into a 
 simple confederacy, and nothing more. 
 Xo State was bound by what it did not 
 itself agree to, or what was done accord- 
 ing to the provisions of the confedera- 
 tion. That was the state of things, 
 Gentlemen, at that time. The war went 
 on ; victory crowned the American arms ; 
 our independence was acknowledged. 
 The States were then united together 
 under a confederacy of very limited pow- 
 ers. It could levy no taxes. It could 
 not enforce its own decrees. It was a 
 confederacy, instead of a united govern- 
 ment. Experience showed that this 
 was insufficient and inefficient. Accord- 
 ingly, beginning as far back almost as 
 the close of the war, measures were 
 taken for the formation of a united gov- 
 ernment, a government in the strict .'^ense 
 of the term, a government that could 
 pass laws binding on the individual citi- 
 zens of all the States, and which could 
 enforce those laws by its executive pow- 
 ers, having them interpreted by a judicial 
 power belonging to the government it- 
 self, and yet a government strictly lim- 
 ited in its nature. AVell. Gentlemen, 
 this led to the formation of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, and that 
 instrument was framed on the idea of 
 a limited government. It proposed to 
 leave, and did leave, the different domes- 
 tic institutions of the several States to 
 themselves. It did not propose consoli- 
 dation. It did not propose that the laws 
 of Virginia should be the laws of New 
 York, or that the laws of New York 
 should be the laws of Massachusetts. It 
 proposed only that, for certain jmrposes 
 and to a certain extent, there should be 
 a united government, and that that gov- 
 ernment should have tiie power of exe- 
 cuting its own laws. All the rest was 
 left to the sevei'al States. 
 
 We now come. Gentlemen, to the very 
 point of the case. At tli.it time slavery 
 
RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 629 
 
 existed in the Southern States, entiiiled 
 iijwn them in the time of the supremacy 
 of British laws over us. There it was. 
 It was obnoxious to the Middle and 
 Eastern States, and honestly and seri- 
 ously disliked, as the records of the 
 country will show, by the Southern States 
 themselves. Now, how was it to be dealt 
 with? Were the Northern and ^Middle 
 States to exclude from the government 
 those States of the South whieh had pro- 
 duced a Washington, a Laurens, and 
 other distinguished patriots, who had so 
 truly served, and so greatly honored, the 
 whole country? Were they to be ex- 
 cluded from the new government be- 
 cause they tolerated the institution of 
 slavery? Your fathers and my fathers 
 did not think so. They did not see that 
 it would be of the least advantage to the 
 slaves of the Southern States, to cut off 
 the South from all connection with the 
 North. Their views of humanity led to 
 no such result; and of course, when the 
 Constitution was framed and estab- 
 lished, and adopted by you, here in New 
 York, and by New England, it con- 
 tained an express provision of security 
 to the persons who lived in the Southern 
 States, in regard to fugitives who owed 
 them service; that is to say, it was stipu- 
 lated that the fugitive from service or 
 labor should be restored to his master 
 or owner if he escaped into a fi ee State. 
 Well, that had been the history of the 
 country from its first settlement. It was 
 a matter of common practice to return 
 fugitives before the Constitution was 
 formed. Fugitive slaves from Virginia 
 to Massachusetts were restored by the 
 people of ^lassachusetts. At that day 
 there was a great system of appreutice- 
 ehip at the North, and many apprentices 
 at the North, taking advantage of cir- 
 cumstances, and of vessels sailing to the 
 South, thereby escaped; and they were 
 restored on proper claim and proof. 
 That led to a clear, express, and well- 
 defined provision in the Constitution of 
 the country on the subject. Now I am 
 aware that all these things are well 
 known; that they have been stated a 
 thousand times; but in these days of 
 pei-petual discontent and misrepresenta- 
 
 tion, to state things a thousand times is 
 not enough ; for tliere are persons whose 
 consciences, it would seem, lead them 
 to consider it their duty to deny, mis- 
 represent, falsify, and cover up truths. 
 Now these are words of the Constitu- 
 tion, fellow-citizens, which I have taken 
 the pains to transcribe therefrom, so that 
 he who runs may read : — 
 
 " No PERSON HELD TO SEHVICE OK 
 LABOR IN ONE StATE, UNDER THE LAWS 
 THEREOF, ESCAPING INTO ANOTHER, 
 SHALL, IN CONSEQUENCE OF ANY LAW 
 OR REGULATION THEREIN, BE DIS- 
 CHARGED FROM SUCH SERVICE OR LA- 
 BOR, BUT SHALL BE DELIVERED UP ON 
 CLAI,M OF THE PARTY TO WHOM SUCH 
 SERVICE OR LABOR MAY' BE DUE." 
 
 Is there any mistake about that? la 
 there any forty-shilling attorney here to 
 make a question of it? No. I will not 
 disgrace my profession by supposing 
 such a thing. There is not, in or out 
 of an attorney's office in the county of 
 Erie, or elsewhere, one who could raise 
 a doubt, or a particle of a doubt, about 
 the meaning of this provision of the 
 Constitution. He may act as witnesses 
 do, sometimes, on the stand. He may 
 wriggle, and twist, and say he cannot 
 tell, or cannot remember. I have seen 
 many such efforts in my time, on the 
 part of witnesses, to falsify and deny 
 the truth. But there is no man who 
 can read these words of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, and say they 
 are not clear and imperative. " No per- 
 son," the Constitution saj's, "held to 
 service or labor in one State, under the 
 laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, 
 in consequence of any law or regulation 
 therein, be discharged fi-om such seivice 
 or labor, but shall be delivered up oa 
 claim of the party to whom such sei-vlce 
 or labor may be due." Why, you slxj 
 be told by forty conventions in ^lassa- 
 chusetts, in Ohio, in New York, or else- 
 where, that, if a colored man comes 
 here, he comes as a freeman; that is a 
 non seqiiilur. It is not so. If he comes 
 as a fugitive from labor, the Constitu- 
 tion says he is not a freeman, and that 
 he shall be delivered up to those who 
 are entitled to his service. 
 
630 
 
 DECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 Gentlemen, that is the Constitution of 
 the United States. Do we, or do we 
 not, mean to conform to it, and to exe- 
 cute that part of the Constitution as well 
 as the rest of it? I believe there are 
 before me here members of Congress. I 
 suppose there may be here members of 
 the State legislature, or executive oflBcers 
 under the State government. I suppose 
 there may be judicial magistrates of 
 New York, executive officers, assessors, 
 supervisors, justices of tlie peace, and 
 constables before me. Allow me to say. 
 Gentlemen, that there is not, that there 
 cannot be, any one of these officers in 
 this assemblage, or elsewhere, who has 
 not, according to the form of the usual 
 obligation, bound himself by a solemn 
 oath to support the Constitution. They 
 have taken their oaths on the Holy 
 Evangelists of Almighty God, or by up- 
 lifted hand, as the case may be, or by a 
 solenm affirmation, as is the practice in 
 some cases ; but among all of them there 
 is not a man who holds, nor is there any 
 man who can hold, any office in the gift 
 of the United States, or of this State, or 
 of any other State, who does not bind 
 himself, by the solemn obligation of an 
 oath, to support the Constitution of the 
 United States. Well, is he to tamper 
 with that? Is he to palter? Gentle- 
 men, our political duties are as much 
 matters of conscience as any other duties ; 
 our sacred domestic ties, our most en- 
 dearing social relations, ai-e no more the 
 subjects for conscientious consideration 
 and conscientious discharge, than the 
 duties we enter upon under the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. The bonds 
 of political brotherhood, which hold us 
 together from Maine to Georgia, rest 
 npon the same principles of obligation 
 
 ^ those of domestic and social life. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, that is the plain 
 story of the Constitution of the United 
 States, on the question of slavery. I 
 contend, and have always contended, 
 that, after the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion, any measure of the government 
 calculated to bring more slave territory 
 into the United States was beyond tlie 
 p(jwer of the Constitution, and against 
 
 Itspiovisions. That is my opinion, aud 
 
 it always has been my opinion. It waa 
 inconsistent with the Constitution of the 
 United States, or thought to be so, m 
 Mr. Jefferson's time, to attach Louisiana 
 to the United States. A treaty with 
 France was made for that purpose. 
 Mr. Jefferson's opinion at that moment 
 was, that an alteration of the Constitu- 
 tion was necessary to enable it to be 
 done. In consequence of considerations 
 to which I need not now refer, that 
 opinion was abandoned, and Louisiana 
 was admitted by law, without any pro- 
 vision in, or alteration of, the Constitu- 
 tion. At that time I was too young to 
 hold any office, or take any share in the 
 political affairs of the country. Louisi- 
 ana was admitted as a slave State, and 
 became entitled to her representation in 
 Congress on the princijile of a mixed 
 basis. Florida was afterwards admit- 
 ted. Then, too, I was out of Congress. 
 I had formerly been a member, but had 
 ceased to be so. I had nothing to do 
 with the Florida treaty, or the admis- 
 sion of Florida. My opinion remains 
 unchanged, that it was not within the 
 original scope or clesign of the Constitu- 
 tion to admit new States out of foreign 
 territory; and, for one, whatever may 
 be said at the Syracuse Convention, or 
 at any other assemblage of insane per- 
 sons, I never would consent, and never 
 have consented, that there should be one 
 foot of slave territory beyond what the 
 old thirteen States had at the time of 
 the formation of the Union. Never, 
 never! The man cannot show his face 
 to me, and say he can prove that I ever 
 departed from that doctrine. He would 
 sneak away, and slink away, or hire a 
 mercenary press to cry out, What an 
 apostate from liberty Daniel Webster 
 has become! But he knows himself to 
 be a hypocrite and a falsifier. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, I was in public life 
 when the proposition to annex Texas to 
 tlifi United States was brought forward. 
 You know that the revolution in Texas, 
 whicli sepaiuted that country from !Mex- 
 ico, occurred in the year 1835 or 1836. 
 I saw then, and I do not know that it 
 re(]uired any particular foresight, tiiat 
 it wuuld be the very next thing to biing 
 
RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 631 
 
 Texas, whicn was desi^rned to be a slavo- 
 holding State, into this Union. I did 
 not wait. I souglit au occasion to pro- 
 claim my utter aversion to any such 
 measure, and I determined to resist it 
 ■with all my strength to the lovst. On 
 this subject, Gentlemen, you will bear 
 with me, if I now repeat, in the pres- 
 ence of this assembly, what I have be- 
 fore spoken elsewhere. I was in this 
 city in the year 1837, and, some time 
 before I left Xew York on that excur- 
 sion from which I returned to this place, 
 my friends in New York were kind 
 enough to offer me a public dinner as a 
 testimony of their regard. I went out 
 of my way, in a speech delivered in 
 Niblo's Saloon, on that occasion, for 
 the purpose of showing that I antici- 
 pated the attempt to annex Texas as a 
 slave territory, and said it should be 
 opposed by me to the last extremity. 
 Well, there was the press all around 
 me, — the AVhig press and the Demo- 
 cratic press. Some spoke in terms com- 
 mendatory enough of my speech, but all 
 agreed that I took pains to step out of 
 my way to denounce in advance the 
 annexation of Texas as slave territory 
 to the United States. I said on that 
 occasion : — 
 
 " Gentlemen, we all see that, by whomso- 
 ever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slave- 
 holding country ; and I frankly avow my 
 entire unwillin|?ness to do any thing that 
 shall extend the slavery of the African 
 race on this continent, or add other slave- 
 holding States to the Union. When I say 
 that I regard slavery in itself as a great 
 moral, social, and political evil, I only use 
 language which has been adopted by dis- 
 tinguished men, themselves citizens of 
 slave-holding States. I shall do nothing, 
 therefore, to favor or encourage its fur- 
 ther extension. We have slavery already 
 amongst us. The Constitution found it in 
 the Union; it recognized it, and gave it sol- 
 emn guaranties. To the full extent of 
 these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, 
 in justice, and by the Constitution. All the 
 stipulations contained in the Constitution 
 in favor of the slave-holding States which 
 are already in the Union ought to be ful- 
 filled, and, so far as depends on me, shall 
 be fultillcd, in the fulness of their spirit 
 and to the exactness of their letter. Sla- 
 
 very, as it exists in the States, is beyond 
 the reach of Congress. It is a concern of 
 tlie States tlicmselvcs ; they have never 
 submitted it to Congress, and Congress has 
 no rightful power over it. I shall concur, 
 therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, 
 no indication of purpose, which shall inter- 
 fere or threaten to interfere with the exclu- 
 sive authority of the several States over the 
 subject of slavery as it exists within their 
 respective limits. All this appears to ma 
 to be matter of plain and imperative duty. 
 But when we come to speak of admitting 
 new States, the subject assumes an entirely 
 different aspect. Our rights and our duties 
 are then both different. The free States, 
 and all the States, arc then at liberty to 
 accept or to reject. When it is proposed to 
 bring new members into this political part- 
 nership, the old members have a right to 
 say on what terms such new partners are 
 to come in, and what they are to bring along 
 with them. In my opinion, the people of 
 the United States will not consent to bring 
 into the Union a new, vastly extensive, and 
 slave-holding country, large enough for half 
 a dozen or a dozen States. In my opinion 
 they ought not to consent to it." 
 
 Gentlemen, I was mistaken ; Congress 
 did consent to the bringing in of Texas. 
 They did consent, and I was a false 
 prophet. Your own State consented, 
 and the majority of the representatives 
 of New Y'ork consented. I went into 
 Congress before the final consummation 
 of the deed, and there 1 fought, holding 
 up both ray hands, and urging, with a 
 voice stronger than it now is, my remon- 
 strances against the whole of it. But 
 you would have it so, and you did have 
 it so. Nay, Gentlemen, I will tell the 
 truth, whether it shames the Devil or 
 not. Persons who have aspired high as 
 lovers of liberty, as eminent lovers of 
 the Wilmot Proviso, as eminent Free 
 Soil men, and who have mounted over 
 our heads, and trodden us down as if we 
 were mere slaves, insisting that they are 
 the only true lovers of liberty, they are 
 the men, the very men, that brought 
 Texas into this Union. This is the 
 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
 the truth, and I declare it before you, 
 this day. Look to the journals. With- 
 out the consent of New York, Texas 
 would not have come into the Union, 
 
6-32 
 
 RlXErXION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 either under the original resolutions or 
 afterwards. But New York voted for 
 the measure. The two Senators from 
 New York voted for it, and decided the 
 que.stion ; and you may thank them for 
 the glory, the renown, and the happi- 
 ness of having five or six slave States 
 added to the Union. Do not blame me 
 for it. Let them answer who did the 
 deed, and who are now proclaiming 
 themselves the champions of liberty, 
 crying up their Free Soil creed, and 
 using it for selfish and deceptive pur- 
 poses. They were the persons who aided 
 in bringing in Texas. It was all fairly 
 told to you, both beforehand and after- 
 •wards. You heard Moses and the proph- 
 ets, but if one had risen from the dead, 
 8uch was your devotion to that policy, at 
 that time, you would not have listened to 
 him for a moment. I do not, of course, 
 speak of the persons now here before 
 me, but of the general political tone in 
 New York, and e.specially of those who 
 are now Free Soil apostles. Well, all 
 that I do not complain of; but I will not 
 now, or hereafter, before the country, 
 or th5 -norld, consent to be numbered 
 among those who introduced new slave 
 power into the Union. I did all in my 
 power to prevent it. 
 
 Then, again, Gentlemen, the Mexican 
 ■war broke out. Vast territory was ac- 
 quired, and the peace was made; and, 
 much as I disliked the war, I disliked 
 the peace more, because it brought in 
 these territories. I wished for peace 
 indeed, but I desired to strike out the 
 grant of territory on the one side, and 
 the payment of the ijri^OOCOOO on the 
 other. That territory was unknown to 
 me; I could not tell what its character 
 might be. The plan came from the 
 South. I knew that certain Southern 
 gentlemen wished the acquisition of 
 California, New Mexico, and Utah, as 
 a means of extending slave power and 
 Blave population. Foreseeing a sectional 
 controversy, and, as I conceived, seeing 
 how nuioh it would distract the Union, 
 I voted against the treaty with Mexico. 
 I voted against tlie acquisition. I wanted 
 none of her territory, neither California, 
 New Mexico, nor Utali. They were 
 
 rather ultra- American, as T thought 
 They were far from us, and J saw that 
 they might lead to a political conflict, 
 and I voted against them all, against 
 the treaty and against the peace, rather 
 than have the territories. Seeing that 
 it would be an occasion of dispute, that 
 by the controversy the whole Union 
 would be agitated, Messrs. Berrien, 
 Badger, and otiier respectable and dis- 
 tinguished men of the South, voted 
 against the acquisition, and the treaty 
 which secured it; and if the men of the 
 North had voted tlie same way, we 
 should have been spared all the difficul- 
 ties that have grown out of it. We 
 should have had peace without the ter- 
 ritories. 
 
 Now there is no sort of doubt. Gen- 
 tlemen, that there were some persons in 
 the South who supposed that California, 
 if it came into the Union at all, would 
 come in as a slave State. You know 
 the extraordinary events which imme- 
 diately occurred, and the impulse given 
 to emigration by the discovery of gold. 
 You know that crowds of Northern peo- 
 ple immediately rushed to California, 
 and that an African slave could no more 
 live there among them, than he could 
 live on the top of Blount Ilecla. Of 
 necessity it became a free State, and 
 that, no doubt, was a source of much 
 disappointment to the South. And then 
 there were New Alexico and Utah; what 
 was to be done with them? Why, Gen- 
 tlemen, from tlie best investigation I had 
 given to the subject, and the reflection 
 I had devoted to it, I was of the opinion 
 that the mountains of New Mexico ami 
 Utah could no more sustain American 
 slavery than the snows of Canada. I 
 saw it was impossible. I thought su 
 then; it is quite evident now. There- 
 fore, when it was proposed in Congress 
 to apply the Wilmot Proviso to New 
 ^Icxico and Utali, it appeared to me 
 just as absurd as to aj'ply it liere in 
 Western New York. I tsaw tliat tlie 
 snow-capped hills, tlie eternal moun- 
 tains, and the climate of tliose countries 
 would never support slavery. No man 
 could carry a slave there with any ex- 
 pectation of profit. It could not be 
 
kKCEPTION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 ti33 
 
 done; and as the South roc^anled the 
 P*roviso as merely a source of irritation, 
 and as designed by some to irritate, I 
 thought it unwise to apply it to New 
 Mexico or Utah. I voted accordingly, 
 and who doubts now the correctness of 
 that vote? The law admitting those 
 territories passed without any proviso. 
 Is there a slave, or will t^lere ever 
 be one, in either of those territories? 
 Why, there is not a man in the United 
 States so stupid as not to see, at this 
 moment, that such a thing was wholly 
 unnecessary, and that it was only calcu- 
 lated to irritate and to offend. I am 
 not one who is disposed to create irrita- 
 tion, or give offence among brethren, or 
 to break up fraternal friendship, with- 
 out cause. The question was accord- 
 ingly left legally open, whether slavery 
 should or should not go to New INIexico 
 or Utah. There is no slavery there, it 
 is utterly impracticable that it should 
 be introduced into such a region, and 
 utterly ridiculous to suppose that it 
 could exist there. No one, who does 
 not mean to deceive, will now pretend 
 it can exist there. 
 
 Well, Gentlemen, we have a race of 
 agitators all over the country; some 
 connected with the press, some, I am 
 sorry to say, belonging to the learned 
 professions. They agitate; their liveli- 
 hood consists in agitating; their free- 
 hold, their copyhold, their capital, their 
 all in all, depend on the excitement 
 of the public mind. The events now 
 briefly alluded to were going on at the 
 commencement of the year 1850. There 
 •were two great questions before the 
 public. There was the question of the 
 Texan boundary, and of a government 
 for Utah and New Mexico, which I 
 consider as one question ; and there 
 was the question of making a provision 
 for the restoration of fugitive slaves. 
 On these subjects, I have something to 
 say. Texas, as you know, established 
 her independence of Mexico by her 
 revolution and the battle of San Jacinto, 
 which made her a sovereign power. I 
 have already stated to you what I then 
 anticipated from the movement, namely, 
 liiat she would ask to come into the 
 
 Union as a slave State. We admitted 
 her in 184.5, and we admitted her as a 
 slave State. We admitted her also with 
 an undefined boundary ; remember that. 
 She claimed by conquest the whole 
 of that teiTitory commonly called New 
 Mexico, east of the Rio Grande. She 
 claimed also those limits which her con- 
 stitution had declared and marked out 
 as the proper limits of Texas. This 
 was her claim, and when she was ad- 
 mitted into the United States, the Unit- 
 ed States did not define her territory. 
 They admitted her as she was. We 
 took her as she defined her own limits, 
 and with the power of making four ad- 
 ditional slave States. I say "we," but 
 I do not mean that I was one; I mean 
 the United States admitted her. 
 
 What, then, was the state of things 
 in 1850? There w'as Texas claiming 
 all, or a great part, of that which the 
 United States had acquired from Mex- 
 ico as New ^Mexico. She claimed that 
 it belonged to her by conquest and by 
 her admission into the United States, 
 and she was ready to maintain her claim 
 by force of arms. Nor was this all. A 
 man must be ignorant of the hi.story of 
 the country who does not know, that, at 
 the commencement of 1850, there was 
 great agitation throughout the whole 
 South. Who does not know that six 
 or seven of the largest States of the 
 South had already taken measures look- 
 ing toward secession; were preparing 
 for disunion in some way? They con- 
 curred apparently, at least some of 
 them, with Texas, while Texas was 
 prepared or preparing to enforce her 
 rights by force of arms. Troops were 
 enlisted by her, and many thousand 
 persons in the South disaffected towards 
 the Union, or desirous of breaking it up, 
 were ready to make common cause with 
 Texas; to join her ranks, and see what 
 they could make in a war to establish 
 the right of Texas to New Mexico. 
 The public mind was disturbed. A 
 considerable pai't of the South was dis- 
 affected towards the Union, and in a 
 condition to adopt any course that should 
 be violent and destructive. 
 
 What then was to be done, as far aa 
 
634 
 
 RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 Texas was concerned? Allow me to 
 say, Gentlemen, there are two sorts of 
 foresight. There is a military foresight, 
 which sees what will be the result of 
 an appeal to arms; and there is also a 
 statesmanlike foresight, which looks not 
 to the result of battles and carnage, but 
 to the results of political disturbances, 
 the violence of faction carried into mili- 
 tary operations, and the horrors attend- 
 ant on civil war. I never had a doubt, 
 that, if the administration of General 
 Taylor had gone to war, and had sent 
 troops into New Mexico, the Texan 
 forces would have been subdued in a 
 week. The power on one side was 
 far superior to all the power on the 
 other. But what then? "What if Texan 
 troops, assisted by thousands of volun- 
 teers from the disaffected States, had 
 gone to New Mexico, and had been de- 
 feated and turned back? Would that 
 have settled the boundary question? 
 Now, Gentlemen, I wish I had ten 
 thousand voices. I wish I could draw 
 around me the whole people of the 
 United States, and I wish I could make 
 them all hear what I now declare on my 
 conscience as my solemn belief, before 
 the Power who sits on high, and who 
 will judge you and me hereafter, that, 
 if this Texan controversy had not been 
 settled by Congress in the manner it 
 was, by the so-called adjustment meas- 
 ures, civil war would have ensued; 
 blood, American blood, would have been 
 shed; and who can tell what would have 
 been the consequences? Gentlemen, in 
 an honorable war, if a foreign foe in- 
 vade us, if our rights are tlireatened, if 
 it be necessary to defend them by arms, 
 I am not afraid of blood. And if I am 
 too old myself, I hope there are those 
 connected with me by ties of relation- 
 ship who are young, and willing to de- 
 fend their country to the last drop of 
 their blood. But I cannot express the 
 horror I feel at the shedding of blood 
 in a controversy between one of these 
 States and the government of the United 
 States, because I see in it a total aiul 
 entire disruption of all those ties that 
 make us a great and happy people. 
 Gentlemen, this was the great question, 
 
 the leading question, at the commence- 
 ment of the year 1850. 
 
 Then there was the other matter, and 
 that was the Fugitive Slave Law. Let 
 me say a word about that. Under the 
 provisions of the Constitution, during 
 Washington's administration, in tho 
 year 1793, there was passed, by general 
 consent, a law for the restoration of 
 fugitive slaves. Hardly any one op- 
 posed it at that period; it was tliought 
 to be necessary, in order to carry the 
 Constitution into effect; the great men 
 of Xew England and Xew York all con- 
 curred in it. It passed, and answered 
 all the purposes expected from it, till 
 about the year 1811 or 1842, when tlie 
 States interfered to make enactments in 
 opposition to it. Tlie act of Congiess 
 said that State magistrates might exe- 
 cute the duties of the law. Some of the 
 States passed enactments imposing a 
 penalty on any State officers who exer- 
 cised authority under the law, or assisted 
 in its execution; others denied the use 
 of their jails to carry the law into effect; 
 and, in general, at the commencement of 
 the j-ear 1851), it had become absolutely 
 indispensable that Congress should pass 
 some law for the execution of this pro- 
 vision of the Constitution, or else gi\e 
 up that provision entirely. That was 
 the question. I was in Congress when 
 it was brousfht forward. I was for a 
 proper law. I had, indeed, proposed 
 a different law; I was of opinion that a 
 summary trial by a jury might be had, 
 which would satisfy the people of the 
 North, and produce no harm to those 
 who claimed the service of fugitives; 
 but I left the Senate, and went to an- 
 other station, before any law was passed. 
 The law of 1850 passed. Now I under- 
 take, as a lawyer, and on my profes- 
 sional character, to say to you, and to 
 all, that the law of 1850 is decidedly 
 more favorable to the fugitive than 
 General Washington's law of 1793; and 
 I will tell you why. In the first place, 
 the present law places the power in 
 much higher hands; in tlie hands of 
 independent judges of the Supreme and 
 Circuit Courts, and District Courts, and 
 of commissioners who are appointed to 
 
RIXErriON AT BUFFALO. 
 
 630 
 
 office for their l^gnl learning. Every 
 fugitive is brought before a tribunal of 
 liigh cliaracter, of eminent ability, of re- 
 spectable station. In the second place, 
 when a claimant comes from A'irginia 
 to New York, to say that one A or one 
 B has run away, or is a fugitive from 
 sen-ice or labor, he brings with him a 
 record of the court of the county from 
 which lie comes, and that record must 
 be sworn to before a magistrate, and 
 ceftified by the county clerk, and bear 
 at official seal. The affidavit must state 
 that A or B had departed under such 
 and such circumstances, and had gone 
 to another State ; and that record under 
 seal is, by the Constitution of the United 
 States, entitled to full credit in every 
 State. Well, the claimant or- his agent 
 comes here, and he presents to you the 
 seal of the court in Virginia, affixed to 
 a record of his declaration, that A or B 
 had escaped from service. He must 
 then prove that the fugitive is here. 
 He brings a witness: he is asked if 
 this is the man, and he proves it; 
 or, in nine cases out of ten, the fact 
 would be admitted bv the fugitive him- 
 self. 
 
 Such is the present law; and, much 
 opposed and maligned as it is, it is more 
 favorable to the fugitive slave than the 
 law enacted during Washington's ad- 
 ministration, in 1793, which was sanc- 
 tioned by the Xorth as well as by the 
 South. The present violent opposition 
 has sprung up in modern times. From 
 whom does this clamor come? Why, 
 look at the proceedings of the antisla- 
 very conventions; look at their resolu- 
 tions. Do you find among those persons 
 who oppose this Fugitive Slave Law any 
 admission whatever, that any law ought 
 to be passed to carry into effect the sol- 
 emn stipulations of the Constitution? 
 Tell me any such case ; tell me if any 
 resolution was adopted by the conven- 
 tion at SjTacuse favorable to the carry- 
 ing out of the Constitution. Xotone! 
 The fact is, Gentlemen, they oppose the 
 constitutional provision ; they oppose the 
 whole! Xot a man of them admits that 
 there ought to be any law on the sub- 
 ject. They deny, altogether, that the 
 
 provisions of the Constitution ought to 
 be carried into effect. Look at the pro- 
 ceedings of the antislavery conventions 
 in Ohio, Massachusetts, and at Syra- 
 cuse, in the State of Xew York, "^^'hat 
 do they say? "That, so help them 
 God. no colored man shall be sent from 
 the State of Xew York back to his mas- 
 ter in Virginia ! " Do not they say that? 
 And, to the fulfilment of that they 
 "pledge their lives, their fortunes, and 
 their sacred honor." Their sacred hon- 
 or ! They pledge their sacred honor to 
 violate the Constitution; they pledge 
 their sacred honor to commit treason 
 against the laws of their country ! 
 
 I have already stated. Gentlemen, 
 what your observation of these things 
 must have taught you. I will only re- 
 cur to the subject for a moment, for the 
 purpose of persuading you, as public 
 men and private men, as good men and 
 patriotic men, that you ought, to the 
 extent of your ability and influence, to 
 see to it that such laws are established 
 and maintained as shall keep you, and 
 the South, and the West, and all the 
 country, together, on the terms of the 
 Constitution. I say, that what is de- 
 manded of us is to fulfil our constitu- 
 tional duties, and to do for the South 
 what the South has a right to demand. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have been some time 
 before the public. ^ly character is 
 known, my life is before the country. 
 I profess to love liberty as much as any 
 man living ; but I profess to love Amer- 
 ican liberty, that liberty which is se- 
 cured to the country by the government 
 under which we live; and I have no 
 great opinion of that other and higher 
 liberty which disregards the restraints 
 of law and of the Constitution. I hold 
 the Constitution of the United States to 
 be the bulwark, the only bulwark, of our 
 liberties and of our national character. 
 I do not mean that you should become 
 slaves under the Constitution. That is 
 not American liberty. That is not the 
 liberty of the Union for which our fathers 
 fought, that libert}' which has given us a 
 right to be known and respected all over 
 the world. I mean only to say, that I am 
 for constitutional liberty. It is enough 
 
636 
 
 RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 for me to be as free as the Constitution 
 of the country makes me. 
 
 Xow, Gentlemen, let me say, that, as 
 much as I respect the character of the 
 people of Western New York, as much 
 as I wish to retain their good opinion, if 
 I should ever hereafter be placed in any 
 situation in public life, let me tell you 
 now that you must not expect from me 
 the slightest variation, even of a hair's 
 breadth, from the Constitution of the 
 United States. I am a Xoithern man. 
 I was born at the North, educated at the 
 North, have lived all my days at the 
 North. I know five hundred Northern 
 men to one Southern man. ^ly sympa- 
 thies, all my sympathies, my love of lib- 
 erty for all mankind, of every color, 
 are the same as yours. My affections 
 and hopes in that respect are exactly 
 like yours. I wish to see all men free, 
 all men happy. I have few personal 
 associations out of the Northern States. 
 My people are your people. And yet 
 I am told sometimes that I am not a 
 friend of liberty, because I am not a 
 Free Soil man. ^Aliat am I ? "^Miat 
 was I ever ? "What shall I be hereafter, 
 if I could sacrifice, for any considera- 
 tion, that love of American liberty wliieh 
 has glowed in my breast since my in- 
 fancy, and which, I hope, will never 
 leave me till I expire ? 
 
 Gentlemen, I regi'et that slavery exists 
 in the Southern States; but it is clear 
 and certain that Congress has no power 
 over it. It may be, however, that, in 
 the dispensations of Providence, some 
 remedy for this evil may occur, or may 
 be hoped for hereafter. But, in the 
 mean time, I hold to the Constitution of 
 the United States, and you need never 
 expect from me, under any circum- 
 stances, that I shall falter from it; that 
 I shall be otherwise tlian frank and de- 
 cisive. I would not part with my char- 
 acter as a man of firmness and decision, 
 and honor and principle, for all that the 
 world possesses. You will find me true 
 to the North, because all my sympathies 
 are with the North. My affections, my 
 children, my hopes, my everything, are 
 with the North. But when I stand up 
 before my country, as one appointed to 
 
 administer the Constitution of the cotui- 
 try, by the blessing of God I will be 
 just. 
 
 Gentlemen, I expect tt be libelled and 
 abused. Yes, libelled anil abused. But 
 it does not disturb me. I have not lost 
 a night's rest for a g^eat many years 
 from any such cause. I have some 
 talent for sleeping. And why should 
 I not expect to be libelled ? Is not 
 the Constitution of the United States 
 libelled and abused ? Do not some peo- 
 ple call it a covenant with hell ? Is not 
 Washington libelled and abused ? Is he 
 not called a bloodhound on the track of 
 the African negro ? Are not our fathers 
 libelled and abused by their own chil- 
 dren ? And ungrateful children they 
 are. How, then, shall I escape? I do 
 not expect to escape ; but, knowing these 
 things, I impute no bad motive to any 
 men of character and fair standing. 
 The great settlement measures of the 
 last Congress are laws. Many resjiect- 
 able men, representatives from your o^nti 
 State and from other States, did not 
 concur in them. I do not impute any 
 bad motive to them. I am ready to be- 
 lieve they are Americans all. They may 
 not have thought these laws necessary; 
 or they may have thought that they 
 would be enacted without their concur- 
 rence. Let all that pass away. If they 
 are now men who will stand bv what is 
 done, and stand up for their country, 
 and say that, as these laws were passed 
 by a majority of the whole country, we 
 must stand by them and live by them, I 
 will respect them all as friends. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, allow me to ask of 
 you. What do you think would have 
 been the condition of the country, at 
 this time, if these laws had not beon 
 passed by tlie last Congress ? if the ques- 
 tion of the Texas boundary had not been 
 settled ? if New Mexico and Utah had 
 been left as desert-places, and no gov- 
 ernment had been provided for tliem "^ 
 And if the other great object to which 
 State laws had opposed so many obsta- 
 cles, tlie restoration of fugitives, had not 
 been provided for, I ask, what would 
 have been the state of this country now? 
 You men of Erie County, you men of 
 
RECEPTION AT UUFEALO. 
 
 637 
 
 New York, I conjure you to go home 
 to-nijjht and meditate on this subject. 
 What would have been the state of this 
 country, now, at this moment, if these 
 laws had not been passed ? I have 
 given my opinion that we should have 
 had a civil w;u:. I refer it to you, there- 
 fore, for your consideration; meditate 
 on it; do not be carried awaj' by any 
 abstract notions or metaphysical ideas ; 
 think practically on the great question, 
 "What would have been the condition of 
 the United States at this moment, if we 
 had not settled these agitating ques- 
 tions? I repeat, in my opinion, there 
 would have been a civil war. 
 
 Gentlemen, will you allow me, for a 
 moment, to advert to myself ? I have 
 been a long time in public life ; of com'se, 
 not many years remain to me. At the 
 commencement of 1850, 1 looked anx- 
 iously at the condition of the country, 
 and I thought the inevitable consequence 
 of leaving the existing controversies un- 
 adjusted would be civil war. I saw dan- 
 ger in leaving Utah and New Mexico 
 without any government, a prey to the 
 power of Texas. I saw the condition of 
 things arising from the interference of 
 some of the States in defeating the oper- 
 ation of the Constitution in respect to 
 the restoration of fugitive slaves. I saw 
 these things, and I made up my mind 
 to encounter whatever might betide me 
 in the attempt to avert the impending 
 catastrophe. And allow me to add some- 
 thing which is not entirely unworthy of 
 notice. A member of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives told me that he had pre- 
 pared a list of one hundred and forty 
 speeches which had been made in Con- 
 gi-ess on the slavery question. " That is 
 a very large number, my friend," I said; 
 " but how is that? " " "WTiy," said he, 
 "a Northern man gets up and speaks 
 with considerable power and fluency 
 until the Speaker's hammer knocks him 
 down. Then gets up a Southern man, 
 and he speaks with more warmth. He 
 is nearer the sun, and he conies out with 
 the greater fervor against the North. 
 He speaks his hour, and is in turn 
 knocked down. And so it has gone on, 
 until I have got one hundi'ed and forty 
 
 speeches on my list." " Well," said I, 
 " where are they, and what are they? " 
 "If the speaker," said he, "was a 
 Northern man, he held forth against 
 slavery; and if he was from the South, 
 he abused the North; and all these 
 speeches were sent by the members to 
 tlieir own localities, where they served 
 only to aggravate the local irritation al- 
 ready existing. No man reads both 
 sides. The other side of the argument 
 is not heard; and the sjjeeches sent from 
 Washington in such prodigious num- 
 bers, instead of tending to conciliation, 
 do but increase, in both sections of the 
 Union, an excitement already of the 
 most dangerous character." 
 
 Gentlemen, in this state of things, 1 ' 
 saw that something must be done. It 
 was impossible to look with indifference ; 
 on a danger of so formidable a char- | 
 acter. I am a ^Massachusetts man, and ■ 
 I bore in mind what Massachusetts 
 has ever been to the Constitution and | 
 the Union. I felt the importance of 
 the duty which devolved upon one to 
 whom she had so long confided the trust 
 of representing her in either house of ; 
 Congress. As I honored her, and re- \ 
 spected her, I felt that I was serving ( 
 her in my endeavors to promote the w^el- 
 fare of the whole country. 
 
 And now suppose. Gentlemen, that, 
 on the occasion in question, I had taken 
 a different course. If I may allude so 
 particularly to an individual so insig- 
 nificant as myself, suppose that, on the 
 7th of March, IS.^O, instead of making 
 a speech that would, so far as my power 
 went, reconcile the country, I had joined 
 in the general clamor of the Antislavery 
 party. Supjiose I had said, " I will have 
 nothing to do with any accommodation ; 
 we wiU admit no compromise ; we will 
 let Texas invade New Mexico ; we will 
 leave New Mexico and Utah to take 
 care of themselves; we will plant our- 
 selves on the Wilmot Proviso, let the 
 consequences be what tliey may." Now, 
 Gentlemen, I do not mean to say that 
 great consequences would have followed 
 from such a course on my part ; but sup- 
 pose I had taken such a course. How 
 I could I be blamed for it? A\'as I not a 
 
o38 
 
 RECEPTION AT BUFFALO. 
 
 Nortliei n man ? Did I not know Massa- 
 chusetts feelings and prejudices? But 
 what of that? I am an American. I 
 was made a whole man, and I did not 
 mean to make myself half a one. I felt 
 that I had a duty to perform to my 
 country, to my own rejiutation; for I 
 flattered myself that a service of forty 
 years had given me some character, on 
 which I had a right to rejjose for my 
 justification in the performance of a 
 duty attended with some degree of local 
 unpopularity. I thought it my duty to 
 pursue this course, and I did not care 
 what was to be the consequence. I felt 
 it was my duty, in a very alarming 
 crisis, to come out; to go for my coun- 
 try, and ray whole countrj^ ; and to ex- 
 ert any power I had to keep that coun- 
 ti-y together. I cared for nothing, I 
 was afraid of nothing, but I meant to 
 do my duty. Duty performed makes a 
 man happy ; duty neglected makes a 
 man unliappy. I therefore, in the face 
 
 of all discouragements and all dangers, 
 was ready to go forth and do what I 
 thought my country, your countrj-, de- 
 manded of me. And, Gentlemen, al- 
 low me to say here to-day, that if the 
 fate of John Rogers had stared me in 
 the face, if I had seen the stake, if I 
 had heard the fagots already crack- 
 ling, by the blessing of Almighty God 
 I would have gone on and discharged 
 the duty which I thought my country 
 called upon me to perform. I would 
 have become a martyr to save that 
 country. 
 
 And now, Gentlemen, farewell. Live 
 and be happy. Live like patriots, live 
 like Americans. Live in the enjoyment 
 of the inestimable blessings which your 
 fathers prepared for you; and if any 
 thing that I may do hereafter should be 
 iuconsLstent, in the slightest degree, with 
 the opinions and principles which I have 
 this day submitted to you, then discard 
 me for ever from your recollection. 
 
THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 AN ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE LAYING OF THE CORNER-STONE OP THK 
 ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL, ON THE 4th OF JULY, 185LI 
 
 Fellow-Citizens, — T greet you well ; 
 I give you joy, on the return of this an- 
 niversary; and I felicitate you, also, on 
 the more particular purpose of which 
 this ever-memorable day has been chosen 
 to witness the fulfilment. Hail! all 
 hail! I see before and around me a 
 mass of faces, glowing with cheerful- 
 ness and patriotic pride. I see thou- 
 sands of eyes turned towards other eyes, 
 all sparkling with gratification and de- 
 light. This is the Xew World! This 
 is America! This is Washington! and 
 this the Capitol of the United States ! 
 And where else, among the nations, can 
 the seat of government be surrounded, 
 on any day of any year, by those who 
 have more reason to rejoice in the bless- 
 ings which they possess? Xowhere, fel- 
 low-citizens! assuredly, nowhere! Let 
 us, then, meet this rising sun with joy 
 and thanksgiving ! 
 
 This is that day of the year which an- 
 nounced to mankind the great fact of 
 American Independence. This fresh 
 and brilliant morning blesses our vision 
 with another beholding of the birthday 
 of carnation; and we see that nation, 
 of recent origin, now among the most 
 considerable and powerful, and spread- 
 ing over the continent from sea to sea. 
 
 Among the first colonists from Eu- 
 rope to this part of America, there were 
 
 1 The following; motto stands upon the title- 
 page of the original pamphlet edition: — 
 
 "Stet Capitolium 
 Fulgen8 ; 
 
 I»te nomen in ultimaa 
 Bxtendal uras." 
 
 some, doubtless, who contemplated the 
 distant consequences of their under- 
 taking, and wlio saw a great futurity. 
 But, in general, their hopes were limited 
 to the enjoyment of a safe asylum from 
 tyranny, religious and civil, and to re- 
 spectable subsistence, by industry and 
 toil. A thick veil hid our times from 
 their view. But the progress of Amer- 
 ica, however slow, could not but at 
 length awaken genius, and attract the 
 attention of mankind. 
 
 In the early part of the second cen- 
 tury of om- history. Bishop Berkeley, 
 who, it will be remembered, had resided 
 for some time in Newport, in Rhode 
 Island, wrote his well-known " Verses 
 on the Prospect of Planting Arts and 
 Learning in America." The last 
 stanza of this little poem seems to 
 have been produced by a high poetical 
 inspiration : — 
 
 " Westward the course of empire takes its way; 
 Tiie four first acts already past, 
 A fifth shall close the drama with the day: 
 Time's noblest offspring is the last." 
 
 This extraordinary prophecy may bo 
 considered only as the result of long 
 foresight and uncommon sagacity ; of a 
 foresight and sagacity stinuilatetl, nev- 
 ertheless, by excited feeling and high 
 enthusiasm. So clear a vision of what 
 America would become was not founded 
 on square miles, or on existing num- 
 bers, or on any common laws of statis- 
 tics. It was an intuitive glance into 
 futurity; it was a grand conception, 
 strong, ardent, gloniug, embracing all 
 
640 
 
 THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 time since the creation of the world, 
 and all regions of which that world is 
 composed, and judging of the future by 
 just analogy with the past. And the 
 inimitable imagery and beauty with 
 which the thought is expressed, joined 
 to the conception itself, render it one 
 of the most striking passages in our lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Oc the day of the Declaration of In- 
 dependence our illustrious fathers per- 
 formed tlie first scene in the la.st great 
 act of this drama; one in real impor- 
 tance infinitely exceeding that for which 
 the great English poet invokes 
 
 '''A muse of fire, . . . 
 A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, 
 And monurchs to beliold the swelling scene! " 
 
 The Muse inspiring our fathers wa.s 
 the Grenius of Liberty, all on fire with 
 a sense of oppression, and a resolution 
 to throw it off; the whole world was 
 the stage, and higher characters than 
 princes trod it; and, instead of mon- 
 archs, countries and nations and the 
 age beheld the swelling scene. How 
 well the characters were cast, and how 
 well each acted his part, and what emo- 
 tions the whole performance excited, let 
 history, now and hereafter, tell. 
 
 At a subsequent period, but before the 
 Declaration of Independence, the Bi.shop 
 of St. Asaph published a discourse, in 
 which the following remarkable passages 
 are found: — 
 
 " It is difficult for man to look into the 
 destiny of future ages ; the designs of Provi- 
 dence are vast and complicated, and our 
 own powers are too narrow to admit of niucli 
 satisfaction to our curiosity. But when we 
 see many great and powerful causes cdii- 
 Btantly at work, we cannot doubt of their 
 pro'-lucing proportionable effects 
 
 " The colonies in North America have 
 not only taken root and acquired strength, 
 but seem hastening with an accelerated pio</iess 
 to such a jjower/id state as may introduce a new 
 and im/iortant change in human aj/'airs. 
 
 " Descended from ancestors of the most 
 improveil and enlightened part of the Old 
 World, they receive, as it were by inheri- 
 tance, all the imjirovements and discoveries 
 of their mother country. And it ha])pens 
 fortunately for them to conunence their 
 flourishing statu at a time when the human 
 
 understanding lias attained to the free use 
 of its powers, and has learned to act with 
 vigor and certainty. They may avail them 
 selves, not only of the experience and in- 
 dustry, but even of the errors and mistakes, 
 of former days. Let it be considered for 
 how many ages a great part of the world 
 appears not to have thought at all ; how 
 many more they have been busied in form- 
 ing systems and conjectures, while reason 
 has been lost in a labyrinth of words, and 
 they never seem to have suspected on what 
 frivolous matters their minds were em- 
 ployed. 
 
 " And let it be well understood what 
 rapid improvements, what important dis- 
 coveries, have been made, in a few years, 
 by a few countries, with our own at their 
 head, which have at last discovered the 
 right method of using their faculties. 
 
 " May we not reasonably expect that a 
 number of provinces possessed of these ad- 
 vantages and quickened by mutual emula- 
 tion, with only the common progress of the 
 human luiiul, should very considerably en- 
 large the boundaries of science f 
 
 " The vast continent itself, over which 
 they are gradually spreading, may be con- 
 sidered as a treasure yet untouched of 
 natural protUictions that shall hereafter 
 afford ample matter for commerce and con- 
 templation. And if we reriect what a stock 
 of knowledge may be accumulated by tlie 
 constant progress of industry and observa- 
 tion, fed with fresh supplies from the store* 
 of nature, assisted sometimes by those happy 
 strokes of chance which mock all the pow- 
 ers of invention, and sometimes by those 
 superior characters which arise occasionally 
 to instruct and enlighten the world, it is 
 difficult even to imagine to what height of 
 imjirovement their discoveries may extend. 
 
 " And perhaps they may make as considera- 
 ble advances in the arts of civil government and 
 the conduct of life. We have reason to be 
 proud, and even jealous, of our excellent 
 constitution ; but tliose equitable principles 
 on which it was fornu-d, an I'Cjual rei)re- 
 sentation (the best discovery of political 
 wisdom), and a just and commodious distri- 
 bution of power, which with us were the 
 price of civil war.-;, and the rewards of the 
 virtues and sufferings of our ancestors, de- 
 scend to them as a natural inheritance, 
 without toil or pain. 
 
 " Hut 'must they rest here, as in the utmost 
 effort of human genius f Can diance and time, 
 Vie wisdom and the experience of pulJic men, 
 suggest no new remedy against tltc ceils which 
 
THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 641 
 
 Tices and ambition are perpetually apt to 
 cause ? May they not hope, without prc- 
 euniption, to preserve a greater zeal for 
 piety and public devotion than we have 
 done ? For sure it can liardly happen to 
 them, as it iias to us, that, when relifjion is 
 best understood and rendered most pure and 
 reasonable, then should be the precise time 
 when many cease to believe and practise it, 
 And all in general become most indifferent 
 to it. 
 
 " May they not possibly be more success- 
 ful thai, their uuther country has been in 
 preserving that reverence and authority 
 which are due to the laws ? to those who 
 make, and to those who execute tliem '? 
 May not a method be invented of prociiritKj some 
 tolerable share of the comforts of life to those in- 
 ferior useful ranks of men to whose induslri/ v:e 
 are indebted for the whole f Time and disci- 
 pline may discover some means to correct the ex- 
 treme ineqtialities of condition between the rich 
 and the poor, so danqerous to the innocence and 
 happiiiess of both. They may fortunately be 
 led by habit and choice to despise that lux- 
 ury which is considered with us the true 
 enjoyment of wealth. They may have lit- 
 tle relish for that ceaseless hurry of amuse- 
 ments which is pursued in this country 
 without pleasure, exercise, or employment. 
 And perhaps, after trying some of our follies 
 and caprices, and rejecting the rest, they 
 may be led by reason and experiment to 
 that old simplicity which was first pointed 
 out by nature, and has produced those 
 models which we still admire in arts, elo- 
 quence, and manners. The diversity of new 
 ecenes and situations, which so many growing 
 slates must necessarily pass through, may intro- 
 duce changes in the fluctuating opinions and 
 manners of men which we conform no conception 
 of; and not only the gracious disposition of 
 Providence, but the visible preparation of 
 causes, seems to indicate strong tendencies 
 towards a general improvement." 
 
 Fellow-citizens, this "gracious dispo- 
 Bitiou of Providence," and this "visible 
 preparation of causes," at length brought 
 on the hour for decisive action. On the 
 4th of July, 1776, the Representatives of 
 the United States of America, in Con- 
 gress as.sembled, declared that these 
 United Colonies are, and of right ought 
 
 to be, FRKE AND INDEPENDENT StATES. 
 
 This Declaration, made by most patri- 
 otic and resolute men, trustins: in the 
 justice of their cause and the protection 
 
 of Heaven, and yet made not without 
 deep .solicitude and anxiety, has now 
 stood for seventy-five years, and still 
 stands. It was sealed in blood, ft has 
 met dangers, and overcome them; it has 
 had enemies, and conquered them; it 
 has had detractors, and abaslied tiiern 
 all; it has had doubting friends, but it 
 has cleared all doubts away; and now, 
 to-day, raising its august form higher 
 than the clouds, twenty millions of peo- 
 ple contemplate it with hallowed love, 
 and the world beholds it, and the con- 
 sequences which have followed from it, 
 with profound admiration. 
 
 This anniversary animates and glad- 
 dens and unites all American hearts. 
 On other days of the year we may be 
 party men, indulging in controversies, 
 more or less important to the public 
 good; we may have likes and dislikes, 
 and we may maintain our political dif- 
 ferences, often with warm, and some- 
 times with angry feelings. But to-day 
 we are Americans all; and all nothing 
 but Americans. As the great luminary 
 over our heads, dissipating mists and 
 fogs, now cheers the whole hemisphere, 
 so do the associations connected with 
 this day disperse all cloudy and sullen 
 weather in the minds and hearts of true 
 Americans. Every man's heart swells 
 within him; every man's port and bear- 
 ing become somewhat more proud and 
 lofty, as he remembers that seventy-five 
 years have rolled away, and tliat the 
 great inheritance of liberty is still his; 
 his, undiminished and unimpaired; hia 
 in all its original glory; his to enjoy, 
 his to protect, and his to transmit to 
 future generations. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, this inheritance which 
 we enjoy to-day is not only an inheri- 
 tance of liberty, but of our own peculiar 
 American liberty. Liberty has existed 
 in other times, in other countries, and in 
 other forms. There has been a Grecian 
 liberty, bold and powerful, full of spirit, 
 eloquence, and fire; a liberty which pro- 
 duced multitudes of gi'eat men, and has 
 transmitted one immortal name, the 
 name of Demosthenes, to posterity. But 
 still it was a liberty of disconnected 
 states, sometimes united, indeed, by 
 
 41 
 
642 
 
 THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 temporary leagues and confederacies, but 
 often involved in wars between them- 
 selves. The sword of Sparta turned its 
 shai-pest edge against Athens, enslaved 
 her, and devastated Greece; and, in her 
 turn, Sparta was compelled to bend be- 
 fore the power of Tliebes. And let it 
 ever be remembered, especially let the 
 truth sink deep into all American minds, 
 that it was the want of union among 
 her several states which finally gave the 
 mastery of all Greece to Philip of ^Jace- 
 don. 
 
 And there has also been a Roman lib- 
 erty, a proud, ambitious, domineering 
 spirit, professing free and popular prin- 
 ciples in Rome itself, but, even in the 
 best days of the republic, ready to carry 
 slavery and chains into her provinces, 
 and through every country over which 
 her eagles could be borne. "What was 
 the liberty of Spain, or Gaul, o- Ger- 
 many, or Britain, in the days of Rome? 
 Did true constitutional liberty then exist? 
 As the Roman empire declined, her prov- 
 inces, not instructed in the principles of 
 free popular government, one after an- 
 other declined also, and when Rome her- 
 self fell, in the end, all fell together. 
 
 I have said. Gentlemen, that our in- 
 heritance is an inheritance of American 
 liberty. That liberty is characteristic, 
 peculiar, and altogether our own. Noth- 
 ing like it existed in former times, nor 
 ■was known in the most enlightened 
 states of antiquity; while with us its 
 principles have become interwoven into 
 the minds of individual men, connected 
 with our daily opinions, and our daily 
 Jiabits, until it is, if I may so say, an 
 element of social as well as of political 
 life; and the consequence is, that to 
 whatever region an American citizen 
 carries himself, he takes with him, fully 
 developed in his own understanding and 
 experience, our American principles and 
 opinions, and becomes ready at once, in 
 co-operation with others, to apply them 
 to the formation of new governments. 
 Of this a mo.'^t wonderful instance may 
 be soon in the history of the State of 
 California. 
 
 On a former occasion I ventured to 
 remark, that "it is very difficult to es- 
 
 tablish a free conservative government 
 for the equal advancement of all the in- 
 terests of society. What has Germany 
 done, learned Germany, more full of 
 ancient lore than all the world beside? 
 What has Italy done? What have they 
 done who dwell on the spot where Cicero 
 lived ? They have not the power of self- 
 government which a common town-meet- 
 ing, with us, possesses Yes, I 
 
 say that those persons who have gone 
 from our town-meetings to dig gold in 
 California are more fit to make a repub- 
 lican government than any body of men 
 in Germany or Italy; because they have 
 learned this one great lesson, that there 
 is no security without law, and that, 
 under the circumstances in which they 
 are placed, where there is no military 
 authority to cut their throats, there is no 
 sovereign will but the will of the major- 
 ity; that, therefore, if they remain, they 
 must submit to that will." And this I 
 believe to be strictly true. 
 
 Now, fellow-citizens, if your patience 
 will hold out, I will venture, before 
 proceeding to the more appropriate and 
 particular duties of the day, to state, in 
 a few words, what I take these Ameri- 
 can political principles in substance to 
 be. They consist, as I think, in the 
 first place, in the establishment of popu- 
 lar governments, on the basis of repre- 
 sentation; for it is plain that a pure 
 democracy, like that which existed in 
 some of the states of Greece, in which 
 every individual had a direct vote in the 
 enactment of all laws, cannot possibly 
 exist in a country of wide extent. This 
 representation is to be made as equal as 
 circumstances will allow. Now, this 
 principle of popular representation, pre- 
 vailing either in all the branches of gov- 
 ernment, or in some of them, has ex- 
 isted in these States almost from the 
 days of the settlements at Jamestown 
 and Pljnnouth ; borrowed, no doubt, 
 from the example of the popular branch 
 of the British legislatiu'e. The repre- 
 sentation of the jjeople in the British 
 House of Commons was, however, origi- 
 nally very unequal, and is yet not equal. 
 Indeed, it may be doubted whether the 
 appearance'of kni^jhts and burgesses, as- 
 
THE ADDITION TO TUE CAI'lTOL. 
 
 643 
 
 Bembling on the summons of the crown, 
 Nvas not intended at iirst as an assistance 
 and support to the royal prerogative, in 
 matters of revenue and taxation, rather 
 than as a mode of ascertaining popular 
 opinion. Nevertheless, representation 
 had a popular origin, and savored more 
 and more of the character of that origin, 
 as it acquired, by slow degrees, greater 
 and greater strength, in the actual gov- 
 ernment of the country. The constitu- 
 tion of the House of Commons was cer- 
 tainly a form of representation, how- 
 ever unequal; nimibers wei-e counted, 
 and majorities prevailed; and when our 
 ancestors, acting upon this example, in- 
 troduced more equality of representa- 
 tion, the idea assumed a more rational 
 and distinct shape. At any rate, this 
 manner of exercising popular power was 
 familiar to our fathers when they settled 
 on this continent. They adopted it, and 
 generation has risen up after generation, 
 all acknowledging it, and all learning its - 
 practice and its forms. 
 
 The next fundamental princ^^ in 
 our system is, that the will of the ma- 
 jority, fairly expressed through the 
 means of representation, shall have 
 the force of law; and it is quite evi- 
 dent that, in a countiy without thrones 
 or aristocracies or privileged castes or 
 classes, there can be no other founda- 
 tion for law to stand upon. 
 
 And, as the necessary result of this, 
 the third element is, that the law is the 
 supreme rule for the government of all. 
 The great sentiment of Alcajus, so beau- 
 tifully presented to us by Sir AVilliam 
 Jones, is absolutely indispensable to the 
 construction and maintenance of our 
 political systems : — 
 
 What constitutes a state? 
 
 Not high-raised battlement or labored mound. 
 
 Thick wall or moated gate; 
 
 Not cities proud, with spires and turrets 
 
 crowned ; 
 Not bays and broad-armed ports. 
 Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies 
 
 ride; 
 Not ."Starred and spangled courts. 
 Where low-browed baseness wafts perfume to 
 
 pride. 
 No: Men, high-minded Men, 
 With powers as far above dull brutes endued. 
 In forest, brake, or den, 
 
 As beasts excel cold rocks and bramliles rude: 
 
 Mon who their duties know. 
 
 But know their rights, and, knowing, dare 
 
 maintain ; 
 Prevent the long-aimed blow, 
 And crush the tyrant while they rend the 
 
 chain : 
 These constitute a state; 
 Anil SovF.i'.KiGN Law, that spate's collected 
 
 will. 
 
 r 
 
 O'er thrones and globes elal. • 
 
 Sits empress, crowning good, repressing ill." 
 
 And, finally, another most important 
 part of the great fabric of American 
 liberty is, that there shall be written 
 constitutions, founded on the imme- 
 diate authority of the people them- 
 selves, and regulating and restraining 
 all the powers conferred upon govern- 
 ment, whether legislative, executive, or 
 judicial. 
 
 This, feUow-citizens, I suppose to be 
 a just suumiary of our American prin- 
 ciples, and I have on this occasion 
 sought to express them in the plain 
 est and in the fewest words. The sum 
 mary may not be entirely exact, but I 
 hope it may be sufficiently so to make 
 manifest to the rising generation among 
 ourselves, and to those elsewhere who 
 may choose to inquire into the nature 
 of our political institutions, the general 
 theory upon which they are founded. 
 
 And I now proceed to add, that the 
 strong and deep-settled conviction of all 
 intelligent persons amongst us is, that, 
 in order to support a useful and wise 
 government upon these popular princi- 
 ples, the general education of the peo- 
 ple, and the wide diffusion of pure 
 morality and true religion, are indis- 
 pensable. Individual virtue is a part 
 of public virtue. It is difficult to con- 
 ceive how there can remain morality iu 
 the government when it shall cease to 
 exist among the people ; or how the 
 aggregate of the political institutions, 
 all the organs of which consist only ot 
 men, should be wise, and beneficent, 
 and competent to inspire confidence, if 
 the opposite qualities belong to the in- 
 dividuals who constitute those organs, 
 and make up that aggregate. 
 
 And now, fellow-citizens, I take leave 
 of this part of the duty which I pro- 
 
644 
 
 THE ADDITION TO TIIE CAPITOL. 
 
 posed to perform; and, once more fe- 
 licitating you and myself that our eyes 
 have seen the light of this blessed morn- 
 ing, and that our ears have heard the 
 shouts -with which joyous thousands wel- 
 come its return, and joining with you in 
 the hope that every revolving year may 
 reue^^ these* rejoicings to the end of 
 time. I proce* 1 to address you, shortly, 
 upon the particular occasion of our as- 
 sembling here to-day. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, by the act of Congress 
 of the 30th of September, 1850, provis- 
 ion was made for the extension of the 
 Capitol, according to such plan as might 
 be approved by the President of the 
 United States, and for the necessary 
 suras to be expended, under his direc- 
 tion, by such architect as he might ap- 
 point. This measure was imperatively 
 demanded, for the use of the legislative 
 and judiciary departments, the public 
 libraries, the occasional accommodation 
 of the chief executive magistrate, and 
 for other objects. Xo act of Congress 
 incurring a large expenditure has re- 
 ceived more general approbation from 
 the people. The President has pro- 
 ceeded to execute this law. lie has 
 approved a plan; he has appointed an 
 architect; and all things are now ready 
 for tlie commencement of the work. 
 
 The anniversary of national indepen- 
 dence appeared to afford an auspicious 
 occasion for laying the foundation-stone 
 of the additional building. That cere- 
 mony has now been performed by the 
 President himself, in the presence and 
 view of this multitude. He has thought 
 that the day and the occasion made a 
 united and imperative call for some 
 short address to the people here as- 
 sembled; and it is at his request that 
 I have appeared before you to perform 
 that part of the duty which was deemed 
 incumbent on us. 
 
 Beneath the stone is deposited, among 
 ' other things, a list of which wiU be pub- 
 lished, the following brief account of tlie 
 proceedings of this day, in my hand- 
 writing: — 
 
 "On the morning of the first day of the 
 »€venty-8ixtli year of the Independence of 
 
 the United States of America, in the city 
 of Washington, being the 4th day of July, 
 18ol, this stone, designed as tlie corner 
 stone of the extension of the Capitol, ao 
 cording to a plan approved by tlie Prew- 
 dent, in pursuance of an act of Congress, 
 was laid by 
 
 MILLARD FILLMORE, 
 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 assisted by the Grand Master of the Ma- 
 sonic Lodges, in the presence of many 
 members of Congress, of oflBcers of the 
 Executive and Judiciary Departments, Na- 
 tional, State, and District, of officers of the 
 army and navy, the corporate autliorities 
 of this and neighboring cities, many asso- 
 ciations, civil and military and masonic, 
 members of the Smithsonian Institution 
 and National Institute, professors of col- 
 leges and teachers of schools of the Dis- 
 trict, with their students and pupils, and a 
 vast concourse of people from places near 
 and remote, including a few surviving gen- 
 tlemen who witnessed tlie laying of the 
 comer-stone of the Capitol by President 
 Washington, on the 18th day of September, 
 A. D. 1793. 
 
 " If, therefore, it shall be hereafter the 
 will of God that this structure shall fall 
 from its base, that its foundation be up- 
 turned, and this deposit brought to the eyes 
 of men, be it then known, that on this day 
 the Union of the United States of America 
 stands firm, that their Constitution still 
 exists unimpaired, and with all its original 
 usefulness and glory ; growing every day 
 stronger and stronger in the affections of 
 the great body of the American people, 
 and attracting more and more the admira- 
 tion of the world. And all here assembled, 
 whether belonging to public life or to pri- 
 vate life, with hearts devoutly thankful to 
 Almighty God for the preservation of the 
 liberty and happiness of the country, unit* 
 in sincere and fervent prayers that this de- 
 posit, and the walls and arches, the domes 
 and towers, the colunms and entablatures, \ 
 now to be erected over it, may endure for 
 ever ! 
 
 "God SAVE the U.mted States of 
 America ! 
 
 "Daniel Webster, —^ 
 
 Secretary of State of the United States.'' 
 
 Fellow-citizens, fifty-eiglit years ago 
 Wasliington stood on this spot to exe- 
 cute a duty like that which has now been 
 performed. He then laid the corner-stone 
 
THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL 
 
 t)45 
 
 ot the original Capitol. He was at the 
 head of the goveniiuent, at tliat time 
 weAk iu resources, huideued with debt, 
 just struggling iuto political existence 
 and respectability, and agitated by the 
 heaving waves which were overturning 
 European thrones. But even then, in 
 many important respects, the govern- 
 ment was strong. It was strong in 
 Wasliington's own great character; it 
 was strong in the wisdom and patriotism 
 of other eminent j ublic men, his political 
 associates and fellow-laborers ; and it was 
 strong in the affections of the people. 
 Since that time astonishing changes 
 
 have been wrought in the condition and 
 prospects of the American people; and 
 a degree of progress witnessed with 
 which the world can furnish no parallel. 
 As we review the course of that progress, 
 wonder and amazement arrest our atten- 
 tion at every step. The present occasion, 
 although allowing of no lengthened re- 
 marks, may yet, perhajw, admit of a 
 short comparative statement of impor- 
 tant subjects of national interest as they 
 existed at that day, and as they now ex- 
 ist. I have adopted for this purpose the 
 tabular form of statement, as beuig the 
 most brief and significant. 
 
 COMPARATIVE T^UJLE. 
 
 Year 1793. Year 1861. 
 
 Number of States 16 31 
 
 Representatives and Senators in Congress 1-35 295 
 
 Population of the United States 3,920,.328 23,267,498 
 
 Population of Boston 18,038 136,871 
 
 Population of Baltimore 13,503 169,0o'l 
 
 Population of Pliiladelphia 42,520 409,045 
 
 Population of New York (city) 33,121 515,507 
 
 Population of Washington ... 40,075 
 
 Population of Richmond 4,000 27,582 
 
 Population of Charleston 16,.S59 42,983 
 
 Amount of receipts into the Treasury $5,720,624 $52,312,980 
 
 Amount of expenditures §7,629,575 §48,005,879 
 
 Amount of imports $31, 000,000 §215,725,995 
 
 Amount of exports §26,109,000 §217,517,130 
 
 Amount of tonnage (tons) 520,764 3,772,440 
 
 Area of the United States in square miles 805,461 3,314.365 
 
 Rank and file of the army 5,120 10,000 
 
 Militia (enrolled) ... 2,006,456 
 
 Navy of the United States (vessels) (None.) 76 
 
 Navy armament (ordnance) ... 2,012 
 
 Treaties and conventions with foreign powers 9 90 
 
 Light-houses and Hght-boats 12 372 
 
 Expenditures for ditto §12,061 $529,265 
 
 Area of the Capitol i acre. 4^ acres. 
 
 Number of miles of railroad in operation ... 10,287 
 
 Cost of ditto ... §306,607,954 
 
 Number of miles in course of construction ... 10,092 
 
 Lines of electric telegraph, in miles ... 15.000 
 
 Number of post-offices 209 21,551 
 
 Number of miles of post-route 5,642 196,290 
 
 Amount of revenue from post-offices §104,747 §6,727,b'67 
 
 Amount of expenditures of Post-Office Department . . . §72,040 §6,024,567 
 
 Number of miles of mail transportation ... 52,465,724 
 
 Number of colleges 19 121 
 
 Public libraries 85 694 
 
 Volumes in ditto 76,000 2,201,632 
 
 School librar-ies ... 10,000 
 
 Volumes in ditto ... 2,000,000 
 
 Emigrants from Europe to the United States 10,000 209.610 
 
 Coinage at the Mint ^,064 §52,U19,466 
 
646 
 
 THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 In respect to the growth of "Western 
 trade and commerce, I extract a few 
 sentences from a very valuable address 
 before the Historical Society of Ohio, 
 by William D. Gallagher, Esq. , 1850 : — 
 
 "A few facts will exhibit as well as a 
 volume the wonderful growth of Western 
 trade and commerce. Previous to the year 
 1800, some eight or ten keel-boats, of twenty 
 or twenty-five tons each, performed all the 
 carrying trade between Cincinnati and 
 Pittsburg. In 1802 the first government 
 ressel appeared on Lake Erie. In 1811 the 
 drst steamboat (the Orleans) was launched 
 at I'ittsburg. In 1820 the waters of Michi- 
 gan were first ploughed by the keel of a 
 steamboat, a pleasure trip to Green Bay 
 being planned and executed in the summer 
 of this year. In 1832 a steamboat first ap- 
 peared at Chicago. At the present time the 
 entire number of steamboats running on the 
 Mississippi and Ohio and their tributaries is 
 more probably over than under six hundred, 
 the aggregate tonnage of which is not short 
 of one hundred and forty thousand ; a larger 
 number of steamboats than England can 
 claim, and a greater steam commercial 
 marine than that employed by Great Brit- 
 ain and her dependencies." 
 
 And now, fellow-citizens, having stat- 
 ed to you this infallible proof of the 
 gro\\'th and prosperity of the nation, 1 
 ask you, and I would ask every man, 
 whether the government which has been 
 over us has proved itself an infliction 
 or a curse to the country, or any part 
 of it? 
 
 Ye men of the South, of all the origi- 
 nal Southern States, what say you to all 
 this? Are you, or any of you, ashamed 
 of this great work of your fathers ? 
 Your fathers were not they who stoned 
 the prophets and killed them. They 
 were among the prophets ; they were of 
 the prophets ; they were tliemselves the 
 prophets. 
 
 Ye men of Virginia, what do you say 
 to all this? Ye men of the Potomac, 
 dwelling along the shores of that river 
 on which Washington lived and died, 
 and where his remains now rest, ye, so 
 many of whom may see the domes of 
 the Capitol from your own homes, what 
 say ye? 
 
 Ye men of Ja:nes River and tlie Bay, 
 
 places consecrated by the early settle- 
 ment of your Commonwealth, ^\hat do 
 you say? Do you desire, from the soil 
 of your State, or as you travel to the 
 North, to see these halls vacated, their 
 beauty and ornaments destroyed, and 
 their national usefulness gone for ever? 
 Ye men beyond the Blue Ridge, many 
 thousands of whom are nearer to this 
 Capitol than to tlie seat of government 
 of your own State, what do you think 
 of breaking this great association into 
 fragments of States and of people? I 
 know that some of you, and I believe 
 that you aU, would be almost as much 
 shocked at the announcement of such a 
 catastrophe, as if you were to be in- 
 formed that the Blue Ridge itself would 
 soon totter from its base. And ye men 
 of "Western Virginia, who occupy the 
 great slope from the top of the AUe- 
 ghanies to Ohio and Kentucky, wliat 
 benefit do you propose to yourselves 
 by disunion? If you "secede," what 
 do you " secede " from, and what do you 
 " accede " to? Do you look for the cm-- 
 rent of the Oliio to change, and to bring 
 you and your commerce to the tide- 
 waters of Eastern rivers? What man 
 in his senses can suppose that you 
 would remain part and parcel of A'ir- 
 ginia a month after Virginia should 
 have ceased to be part and parcel of the 
 United States? 
 
 The secession of Virginia ! The se- 
 cession of Virginia, whether alone or 
 in company, is most improbable, the 
 greatest of all improbabilities. Vii"- 
 ginia, to her everlasting honor, acted 
 a gi-eat part in framing and establishing 
 the present Constitution. She h;is liad 
 her reward and her distinction. Seven of 
 her noble sons have each filled the Pit: i- 
 dency, and enjoyed the highest honors 
 of the country. Dolorous complaints 
 come up to us from the South, that Vir- 
 ginia will not head the march of sece^s- 
 sioii, and lead the other Suutheni States 
 out of the L'nion. This, if it should 
 happen, would be something of a mar- 
 vel, certainly, considering how much 
 pains Virginia took to lead these same 
 States into the Union, and considering, 
 too, that she has partaken as largely of 
 
THE ADDITION TO THE CAriTOL. 
 
 647 
 
 its benefits and its government as any 
 other State. 
 
 And ye men of the other Southern 
 States, members of the Old Thirteen; 
 yes, members of the Old Thirteen ; that 
 always touches my regard and my sym- 
 pathies; North Carolina, Georgia, South 
 Carolina! What page in your history, 
 or in the history of any one of you, is 
 brighter than those which have been 
 recorded since the Union was formed? 
 Or tla"ough what period has youi- pros- 
 peiity been greater, or your peace and 
 happiness better secured? ^^^lat names 
 even has South Carolina, now so much 
 dissatisfied, what names has she of 
 ■which her intelligent sons are more 
 proud than those which have been con- 
 nected with the government of the Unit- 
 ed States? In Revolutionary times, and 
 in the earliest days of this Constitution, 
 there was no State more honored, or 
 more deserving of honor. "WTiere is 
 she now? And what a fall is there, 
 my countrymen! But I leave her to 
 her own reflections, commending to her, 
 with all my heart, the due consideration 
 of her own example in times now gone 
 
 by. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, there are some dis- 
 eases of the mind as well as of the 
 body, diseases of communities as well 
 as diseases of individuals, that must be 
 left to their own cure ; at least it is wise 
 to leave them so until the last critical 
 moment shall arrive. 
 
 I hope it is not irreverent, and cer- 
 tainly it is not intended as reproach, 
 when I say, that I know no stronger 
 expression in our language than that 
 which describes the restoration of the 
 wayward son, — " he came to himself." 
 He had broken away from all the ties of 
 love, family, and friendship. He had 
 forsaken every thing which lie had once 
 reararded in his father's house. He had 
 forsworn his natural sympathies, affec- 
 tions, and habits, and taken his journey 
 into a fai country. He had gone away 
 from himself and out of himself. But 
 misfortunes overtook him, and famine 
 threatened him with starvation and 
 death. No entreaties from home fol- 
 lowed liim to beckon him back: no ad- 
 
 monition from others warned him of hia 
 fate. But the hour of reflection had 
 come, and nature and conscience wrought 
 within him, until at length " he came to 
 himself." 
 
 And now, ye men of the new States 
 of tlie South 1 You are not of the origi- 
 nal thirteen. The battle had been fought 
 and won, the Revolution achieved, and 
 the Constitution established, before your 
 States had any existence as States. You 
 came to a prepai'ed banquet, and had 
 seats assigned you at table just as honor- 
 able as those which were filled by older 
 guests. You have been and are singu- 
 larly prosperous ; and if any one should 
 deny this, you would at once contradict 
 his assertion. You have bought va.st 
 quantities of choice and excellent land 
 at the lowest price; and if the public 
 domain has not been lavished upon you, 
 you yourself will admit that it has been 
 appropriated to your own uses by a very 
 liberal hand. And yet in some of these 
 States, not in all, persons are found in 
 favor of a dissolution of the Union, oi 
 of secession from it. Such opinions are 
 expressed even where the general pros- 
 perity of the community has been the 
 most rapidly advanced. In the flourish- 
 ing and interesting State of Mississippi, 
 for example, there is a large party wliich 
 insists that her grievances are intoler- 
 able, that the whole body politic is in a 
 state of suffering; and all along, and 
 through her whole extent on the Missis- 
 sippi, a loud ciy rings that her only 
 remedy is " Secession," " Secession." 
 Now, Gentlemen, what infliction does 
 the State of Mississippi suffer under? 
 What oppression prostrates her .strength 
 or destroys her happiness? Before we 
 can judge of the proper remedy, we 
 must know something of the disease; 
 and, for my part, I confess that the real 
 evil existing in the case appears to me 
 to be a certain inquietude or uneasiness 
 growing out of a high degree of pros- 
 perity and consciousness of wealth and 
 power, which sometimes lead men to be 
 ready for changes, and to push on un- 
 reasonably to still higher elevation. li 
 this be the truth of the matter, her po- 
 litical doctors are about right. K the 
 
648 
 
 THE ADDITION TO THE C^U'ITOL. 
 
 complaint spring from over-wrought 
 pi-osperity, for that disease I have no 
 doubt that secession would prove a 
 sovereign remedy. 
 
 But I return to the leading topic on 
 which I w;is engaged. In the depart- 
 ment of invention there have been 
 wonderful applications of science to 
 arts within the last sixty years. The 
 epacioos hall of the Patent Office is at 
 once the repository and proof of Ameri- 
 can inventive art and genius. Their 
 results are seen in the numerous im- 
 provements by which human labor is 
 abridged. 
 
 Without going into details, it may be 
 suflScient to say, that many of the ap- 
 plications of steam to locomotion and 
 manufactures, of electricity and magnet- 
 ism to the production of mechanical mo- 
 tion, the electrical telegraph, the regis- 
 tration of astronomical phenomena, the 
 art of multiplying engravings, the in- 
 troduction and improvement among us 
 of all the important inventions of the 
 Old World, are striking indications of 
 the progress of this countiy in the use- 
 ful arts. The net-work of railroads and 
 telegraphic lines by which this vast 
 country is reticulated have not only 
 developed its resources, but united em- 
 phatically, in metallic bands, all parts 
 of the Union. The hydraulic works of 
 New York, Philadelphia, and Boston 
 surpass in extent and importance those 
 of ancient Rome. 
 
 But we have not confined our atten- 
 tion to the immediate application of 
 science to the useful arts. We have 
 entered the field of original research, 
 and have enlarged the bounds of scien- 
 tific knowledge. 
 
 Sixty years ago, besides the brilliant 
 discoveries of Franklin in electricity, 
 scarcely any thing had been done among 
 us in the way of original discovery. Our 
 men of science were content with re- 
 peating the experiments and diffusing 
 a knowledge of the, discoveries of the 
 iearnetl of tlie Old World, without at- 
 tempting to add a single new fact or 
 principle to the existing stock. Within 
 the last twenty-five or thirty years a re- 
 
 markable improvement has taken place 
 in this respect. Our natural history has 
 been explored in all its branches; our 
 geology has been investigated with re- 
 sults of the highest interest to practical 
 and theoretical science. Discoveries have 
 been made in pure chemistry and elec- 
 tricity, which have received the approba- 
 tion of the world. The advance which 
 has been made in meteorology in this 
 country, within the last twenty years, is 
 equal to that made during the same 
 period in all tlie world besides. 
 
 In 1793 there was not in the United 
 States an instrument with which a good 
 observation of the heavenly bodies could 
 be made. There are now instruments 
 at Washington, Cambridge, and Cin- 
 cinnati equal to tho.se at the best Euro- 
 pean observatories, and the original dis- 
 coveries in astronomy within the last 
 five years, in this country, are among 
 the most brilliant of the age. I can 
 hardly refrain from saying, in this con- 
 nection, that the " Celestial Mechanics " 
 of La Place has been translated and com- 
 mented upon by Bowditch. 
 
 Our knowledge of the geography and 
 topography of the American continent 
 has been rapidly extended by the labor 
 and science of the officers of the United 
 States army, and discoveries of much 
 interest in distant seas have resulted 
 from the enterprise of the navy. 
 
 In 1807, a survey of the coast of the 
 United States was commenced, which at 
 that time it was supposed no American 
 was competent to direct. The work 
 has, however, grown within the last few 
 years, under a native superintendent, 
 in importance and extent, beyond any 
 enterprise of the kind ever before at- 
 tempted. 
 
 These facts conclusively prove that a 
 great advance has been made among us, 
 not only in the application of science to 
 the wants of ordinary life, but in sci- 
 ence itself, in its highest branches, iu 
 its adaptation to satisfy the cravings of 
 the immortal mind. 
 
 In respect to literature, with the ex- 
 ception of some books of elementary edu- 
 cation, and .some theological treatises, of 
 which scarcely any but those of Jona- 
 
nil-: ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 649 
 
 than Edwards have any permanent value, 
 and some works on local history and pol- 
 itics, like Hutchinson's Massachusetts, 
 Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, the Feder- 
 alist, Belknap's New Hampshire, and 
 Morse's Geography, and a few others, 
 America had not produced a single work 
 of any rejmte in literature. We were 
 almost wholly dependent on imported 
 books. Even our Bibles and Testa- 
 ments were, for the most part, printed 
 abroad. The book trade is now one of 
 the greatest branches of business, and 
 many works of standard value, and of 
 high reputation in Europe as well as at 
 home, have been produced by American 
 authors in every department of literary 
 composition. 
 
 ■\\'inle the country has been expanding 
 in dimensions, in numbers, and in wealth, 
 the government has applied a wise fore- 
 cast in the adoption of measures neces- 
 sary, when the world shall no longer be 
 at peace, to maintain the national honor, 
 •whether by appropriate displays of vigor 
 abroad, or by well-adapted means of 
 defence at home. A navy, which has 
 so often illustrated our history by heroic 
 achievements, though in peaceful times 
 restrained in its operations to narrow 
 limits, possesses, in its admirable ele- 
 ments, the means of great and sudden 
 expansion, and is justly looked upon by 
 the nation as the right arm of its power. 
 An army, still smaller, but not less per- 
 fect in its detail, has on many a field 
 exhibited the military aptitudes and 
 prowess of the race, and demonstrated 
 the wisdom which has presided over its 
 organization and government. 
 
 While the gradual and slow enlarge- 
 ment of these respective military arms 
 has been regulated by a jealous watch- 
 fulness over the public treasure, there 
 has, neverthless, been freely given all 
 that was needed to perfect their quality; 
 and each affords the nucleus of any en- 
 largement that the public exigencies 
 may demand, from the millions of brave 
 hearts and strong arms upon the land 
 and water. 
 
 The navy is the active and aggressive 
 element of national defence; and, let 
 loose from our own sea-coast, must dis- 
 
 play its power in the seas and chaimels 
 of the enemy. To do this, it need not 
 be large; and it can never be large 
 enough to defend by its presence at 
 home all our ports and harbors. But, 
 in the absence of the navy, what can 
 the regidar army or the volunteer militia 
 do against the enemy's line-of-battlo 
 ships and steamers, falling without notice 
 upon our coast? What will guard our 
 cities from tribute, our merchant-vessels 
 aiid our navy-yards from conflagration? 
 Here, again, we see a wise forecast in 
 the system of defensive measures which, 
 especially since the close of the war 
 with Great Britain, has been steadily 
 followed by our government. 
 
 While the perils from which our great 
 establishments had just escaped were yet 
 fresh in remembrance, a system of forti- 
 fications was begun, which now, though 
 not quite complete, fences in our im- 
 portant points witli impassable strength. 
 More than four thousand cannon may at 
 any moment, within strong and perma- 
 nent works, arranged with all the ad- 
 vantages and appliances that the art 
 affords, be turned to the protection of 
 the sea-coast, and be served by the men 
 whose hearths they shelter. Happy for 
 us that it is so, since these are means of 
 security that time alone can supply, 
 and since the improvements of mari- 
 time warfare, by making distant expe- 
 ditions easy and speedy, have made 
 them more probable, and at the same 
 time more difficult to anticipate and 
 provide against. The cost of fortifying 
 all the important points of om- coast, as 
 well upon the whole Atlantic as the 
 Gulf of Mexico, will not exceed the 
 amount expended on the fortifications 
 of Paris. 
 
 In this connection one most important 
 facility in the defence of the country is 
 not to be overlooked ; it is the extreme 
 rapidity with which the soldiers of the 
 army, and any number of the militia 
 corps, may be brought to any point 
 where a hostile attack shall at any tiu>e 
 be made or threatened. 
 
 And this extension of territory em- 
 braced within the United States, in- 
 crease of its population, comme,rce, au^ 
 
650 
 
 THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 manufactures, development of its re- 
 sources by canals and railroads, and ra- 
 pidity of intercommunication by means 
 of steam and electricity, have all been 
 accomplished without overthrow of, or 
 danger to, the public liberties, by any 
 assumption of military power; and, in- 
 deed, without any permanent increase 
 of the army, except for the purpose of 
 frontier defence, and of affording a 
 slight guard to the public property ; or 
 of the navy, any further than to assure 
 the navigator that, in whatsoever sea he 
 shall sail his ship, he is protected by the 
 stars and stripes of his country. This, 
 too, has been done without the shedding 
 of a drop of blood for treason or rebel- 
 lion ; while systems of popular represen- 
 tation have regularly been supported in 
 the State governments and in the general 
 government; while laws, national and 
 State, of such a character have been 
 passed, and have been so wisely admin- 
 istered, that I may stand up here to- 
 day, and declare, as I now do declare, 
 in the face of all the intelligent of the 
 age, that, for the period wliich has 
 elapsed from the day tliat Washing- 
 ton laid the foundation of this Capitol 
 to the present time, there has been no 
 country upon earth in which life, lil>erty, 
 and property have been more amply and 
 steadily secured, or more freely enjoyed, 
 than in these United States of America. 
 Who is there that will deny this? Who is 
 there prepared with a greater or a better 
 example? AVho is there that can stand 
 upon the foundation of facts, acknowl- 
 edged or proved, and assert that these 
 our republican institutions have not an- 
 swered the true ends of governtnent be- 
 yond all precedent in human hi.story? 
 
 There is yet another view. Thei'e are 
 Btill higlier considerations. 'Man is an 
 intellectual being, destined to immor- 
 tality. There is a spirit in him, and 
 the breath of the Almighty hath given 
 him under.standing. Then only is he 
 tending toward his own destiny, while 
 he seeks for knowledge and virtue, for 
 the will of his Maker, and for just con- 
 cepi'ons of his own duty. Of all im}>or- 
 tant questions, therefore, let this, the 
 most important of all, be first asked 
 
 and first answered: In Ahat country of 
 the habitable globe, of great extent 
 and large population, are the means of 
 knowledge the most generally diffused 
 and enjoyed among the people? This 
 question admits of one, and only one, 
 answer. It is here; it is here in these 
 United States ; it is among the descend- 
 ants of those who settled at Jamestown ; 
 of those who were pilgrims on the shore 
 of Plymouth; and of those other races 
 of men, who, in subsequent times, have 
 become joined in this great American 
 family. Let one fact, incapable of doubt 
 or dispute, satisfy every mind on this 
 point. The population of the United 
 States is twenty-three millions. Now, 
 take the map of the continent of Euro}>e 
 and spread it out before you. Take 
 your scale and your dividers, and lay off 
 in one area, in any shape you please, a 
 triangle, square, cii-cle, parallelogi-am, 
 or trapezoid, and of an extent that shall 
 contain one hundred and fifty millions 
 of people, and there will be found within 
 the United States more persons who do 
 habitually read and write than can be 
 embraced within the lines of yom- demar- 
 cation. 
 
 But there is something even more than 
 this. i\Ian is not only an intellectual, 
 but he is also a religious being, and his 
 religious feelings and habits requii-e cul- 
 tivation. Let the religious element in 
 man's nature be neglected, let him be 
 influenced by no higher motives than 
 low self-interest, and subjected to no 
 stronger restraint than the limits of civil 
 authority, and he becomes the creatiu-e 
 of selfish passion or blind fanaticism. 
 
 The spectacle of a nation powerful 
 and enlightened, but without Chri.'^tian 
 faith, has been presented, almost within 
 our own day, as a warning beacon for 
 the nations. 
 
 On the other hand, the cultivation of 
 the religious sentiment represses licen- 
 tiousness, incites to general benevolence 
 ami the practical acknowledgment of the 
 brotherhood of man, inspires respect for 
 law and order, and gives strength to tlie 
 whole soc'al fabric, at the same time 
 that it conducts the himiau soul upward 
 to the Author of its being. 
 
THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 651 
 
 Now, I tliink it may be stated with 
 truth, that in no country, in proportion 
 to its population, are there so many be- 
 nevolent establishments connected with 
 religious instruction, Bible, ^lissionary, 
 and Tract Societies, supported by public 
 and private contributions, as in our own. 
 There are also institutions for the educa- 
 tion of the blind, of idiots, of the deaf 
 and dumb ; for the reception of orphan 
 and destitute children, and the insane; 
 for moral reform, designed for children 
 and females respectively; and institu- 
 tions for the reformation of criminals; 
 not to speak of those numerous estab- 
 lishments, in almost every county and 
 town iu the United States, for the recep- 
 tion of the aged, infirm, and destitute 
 poor, many of whom have fled to our 
 shores to escape the poverty and wretch- 
 edness of their condition at home. 
 
 In the United States there is no church 
 establishment or ecclesiastical authority 
 founded by government. Public worship 
 is maintained either by voluntary asso- 
 ciations and contributions, or by trusts 
 and donations of a charitable origin. 
 
 Now, I think it safe to say, that a 
 gi-eater portion of the people of the 
 United States attend public worship, 
 decently clad, well behaved, and well 
 seated, than of any other country of the 
 civilized world. Edifices of religion are 
 seen everjTvhere. Their aggregate cost 
 would amount to an immense sum of 
 money. They are, in general, kept in 
 good repair, and consecrated to the pur- 
 poses of public worship. In these edi- 
 fices the people regularly assemble on 
 the Sabbath day, which, by all classes, 
 is sacredly set apart for rest from secular 
 emplojanent and for religious medita- 
 tion and worship, to listen to the read- 
 ing of the Holy Scriptures, and dis- 
 courses from pious ministers of the sev- 
 eral denominations. 
 
 This attention to the wants of the in- 
 tellect and of the soul, as manifested by 
 the voluntary support of schools and 
 colleges, of churches and benevolent in- 
 stitutions, is one of the most remarkable 
 characteristics of the American people, 
 not less strikingly exJiibited in the new 
 than in the older settlements of the 
 
 country. On the spot wliere the first 
 trees of the forest were felled, near the 
 log cabins of the pioneers, are to be seen 
 risinc: together the church and the school- 
 house. So has it been from the begin- 
 ning, and God grant that it may thus 
 continue 1 
 
 ' ' On other shores, above their mouklering towna, 
 In sullen pomp, the tall cainedral frowns; 
 Simple and frail, our lowly temples throw 
 Their slender shadows on the paths below; 
 Scarce steal the winds, that sweep the wool- 
 
 land tracks, 
 The larch's perfume from the settler's axe, 
 Ere, like a vision of the morning air, 
 liis slight-framed steeple marks the house of 
 
 prayer. 
 Yet Faith's pure hymn, beneath its sheher 
 
 rude. 
 Breathes out as sweetly to the tangled wood. 
 As where the rays through blazing oriels pour 
 On marble shaft and tessellated lloor." 
 
 "Who does not admit that this unpar 
 alleled growth in prosperity and renown 
 is the result, under Providence, of the 
 union of these States under a general 
 Constitution, which guarantees to each 
 State a republican form of government, 
 and to every man the enjoyment of life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, 
 free from civil tyranny or ecclesiastical 
 domination V 
 
 And, to bring home this idea to the 
 present occasion, who does not feel that, 
 when President Washing-ton laid his 
 hand on the foundation of the first Cap- 
 itol, he performed a great work of per- 
 petuation of the Union and the Consti- 
 tution? AVho does not feel that this 
 seat of the general government, health- 
 ful in its situation, central in its posi- 
 tion, near the mountains whence i^ash 
 springs of wonderful virtue, teeming 
 with Nature's richest products, and yet 
 not far from the bays and the great 
 estuaries of the sea, easily accessible 
 and generally agreeable in climate and 
 association, does give strength to the 
 union of these States? that this city, 
 bearing an immortal name, with its 
 broad streets and avenues, its public 
 squares and magnificent edifices of the 
 general government, erected for the pur- 
 pose of carrying on within them the im- 
 portant busine.ss of the several dipaxt- 
 
652 
 
 THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 ments, for the reception of wonderful 
 and curious inventions, for the preser- 
 vation of the records of American learn- 
 ing and genius, of extensive collections 
 of the products of nature and art, brought 
 hither for study and comparison from 
 all parts of the world, — adorned with 
 numerous churches, and sprinkled over, 
 I am happy to say, with many public 
 vihooLs, where all the children of the 
 city, without distinction, have the means 
 of obtaining a good education, and with 
 academies and colleges, professional 
 schools and public libraries, — should 
 continue to receive, as it has heretofore 
 received, the fostering care of Congi-ess, 
 and should be regarded as the permanent 
 seat of the national gevernment? Here, 
 too, a citizen of the great repulilic of 
 letters,^ a republic which knows not the 
 metes and bounds of political geogra- 
 phy, has prophetically indicated his 
 conviction that America is to exercise 
 a wide and powerful influence in the 
 intellectual world, by founding in this 
 city, as a commanding position in the 
 field of science and literature, and 
 placing under the guardianship of the 
 government, an institution "for the 
 increase and diffusion of knowledge 
 among men." 
 
 With each succeeding year new inter- 
 est is added to the spot; it becomes 
 connected with all the historical associa- 
 tions of our country, with her stcates- 
 men and her orators, and, alas! its cem- 
 etery is annually enriched by the ashes 
 of her chosen sons. 
 
 Before us is the broad and beautiful 
 river, separating two of the original 
 thirteen States, which a late President, 
 a mau of determined purpose and inflex- 
 il)le will, but patriotic heart, desired to 
 Bpan with arches of ever-enduring gran- 
 ite, 83'mbolical of the firmly cemented 
 union of the North and the South. That 
 President was General Jackson. 
 
 On its banks repose the allies of the 
 Father of his Country, and at our side, 
 by a singular felicity of position, over- 
 looking the city which he designed, and 
 
 1 Huf;h Sinithson, whose munificent bequest 
 hM been a[)plii'»l to the founJatio- of "The 
 Smithsoniur Institution." 
 
 which bears his name, rises to liis mem- 
 or}' the marble column, sublime in its 
 simple grandeu-, and fitly intended to 
 reach a loftier height than any similar 
 structure on the surface of the whole 
 earth. 
 
 Let the votive offerings of his grate- 
 ful countrymen be freely contributed to 
 carry this monument higher and still 
 higher. May I say, as on another occa- 
 sion, " Let it rise; let it rise till it meet 
 the sun in his coming; let the earliest 
 light of the morning gild it, and parting 
 day linger and play on its summit I " 
 
 Fellow-citizens, what contemplations 
 are awakened in our minds as we assem- 
 ble here to re-enact a scene like that 
 performed by Washington! Methinks 
 I see his venerable form now before me, 
 as presented in the glorious statue by 
 Houdon, now in the Capitol of Virginia, 
 lie is dignified and grave; but concern 
 and anxiety seem to soften the linea- 
 ments of his countenance. The govt-rn- 
 ment over which he presides is yet in 
 the crisis of experiment. Not free from 
 troubles at home, he sees the world in 
 commotion and in arms all around him. 
 He sees that imposing foreign powers 
 are half disposed to try the strength of 
 the recently established American gov- 
 ennnent. We perceive that mighty 
 thoughts, mingled with fears as well as 
 with hopes, are struggling within him. 
 He heads a short procession over these 
 then naked fields; he crosses yonder 
 stream on a fallen tree; he ascends to 
 the top of this eminence, whose original 
 oaks of the forest stand as thick around 
 him as if the spot had been devoted to 
 Druidical worship, and here he performs 
 the appointed duty of the day. 
 
 And now, felkiw-citizens, if this vis- 
 ion were a reality; if Washington actu- 
 ally were now amongst us, and if he 
 could draw around him the shades of 
 the great public men of his own day, 
 patriots and warriors, orators and states- 
 men, and were to address us in their 
 presence, would he not say to us: " Ye 
 men of this generation, I rejoice and 
 thank God for being able to see that our 
 labors and toils and sacrifice^ were not 
 iu vain. Y iu aie prosperous, you are 
 
THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITOL. 
 
 653 
 
 happy, yon nre p^ratefnl; the fire of lib- 
 erty burns brightly and steadily in your 
 hearts, while duty and the law re- 
 strain it from bursting forth in wild 
 and destructive conflagration. Cherish 
 liberty, as you love it ; clierish its secu- 
 rities, as you wish to preserve it. Main- 
 tain the Constitution which wo labored 
 so painfully to establish, and which has 
 been to you such a source of inestima- 
 ble blessings. Preserve the union of 
 the States, cemented as it was by our 
 prayers, our tears, and our blood. Be 
 true to God, to your country, and to 
 youT duty. So shall the whole Eastern 
 world follow the morning sun to con- 
 template you as a nation; so shall all 
 generations honor you, as they honor 
 us; and so shall that Almighty Power 
 which so graciously protected us, and 
 which now protects you, shower its 
 everlasting blessings upon you and your 
 posterity." 
 
 Great Father of your Country! we 
 heed your words ; we feel their force as 
 if you now uttered them with lips of 
 flesh and blood. Your example teaches 
 us, your affectionate addresses teach us, 
 your public life teaches us, your sense 
 of the value of the blessings of the 
 Union. Those blessings our fathers 
 have tasted, and we have tasted, and 
 still taste. Xor do we intend that those 
 who come after us shall be denied the 
 same high fruition. Our honor as well 
 as our happiness is concerned. We can- 
 not, we dare not, we will not, betray 
 our sacred trust. We will not filch 
 from posterity the treasure placed in 
 our hands to be transmitted to other 
 generations. The bow that gilds the 
 clouds in the heavens, the pillars that 
 uphold the firmament, may disappear 
 and fall away in the hour appointed by 
 the will of God; but until that day 
 comes, or so long as our lives may last, 
 no ruthless hand shall undermine that 
 bright arch of Union and Liberty which 
 s]\ins the Continent from Washington to 
 California. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, we must sometimes 
 be tolerant to folly, and patient at the 
 sight of the extreme waywardness of 
 men ; but I confess that, when I reflect 
 
 on the renown of our past histoiy, on 
 our presont prosperity and greatness, 
 and on what the future hath yet to un- 
 fold, and when I see that there are men 
 who can find in all this nothing good, 
 nothing valuable, nothing truly glorious, 
 I feel that all their reason has tl'd away 
 from them, and left the entire control 
 over their judgment and their actions 
 to insanity and fanaticism; and mora 
 than all, fellow-citizens, if the purposes 
 of fanatics and disunionists should be 
 accomplished, the patriotic and intelli- 
 gent of our generation would seek to 
 hide themselves from the scorn of tlie 
 world, and go about to find dishonorable 
 graves. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, take courage; be of 
 qood cheer. We shall come to no such 
 ignoble end. We shall live, and not 
 die. During the period allotted to our 
 several lives, we shall continue to re- 
 joice in the return of this anniversary. 
 The ill-omened sounds of fanaticism 
 will be hushed ; the ghastly spectres of 
 Secession and Di.'<u»ion will disappear; 
 and the enemies of united constitutional 
 liberty, if their hatred cannot be ap- 
 peased, may prepare to have their eye- 
 balls seared as they behold the steady 
 flight of the American eagle, on his 
 burnished wings, for years and years to 
 come. 
 
 President Fillmore, it is your singu- 
 larly good fortune to perform an act 
 such as that which the earliest of your 
 predecessors performed fifty-eight years 
 ago. You stand where he stood; you 
 lay your hand on the corner-stone of a 
 building designed greatly to extend that 
 whose corner-stone he laid. Changed, 
 changed is every thing around. The 
 same sun, indeed, shone upon his head 
 which now shines upon yours. The 
 same broad river rolled at his feet, and 
 bathes his last resting-place, that now 
 rolls at yours. But the site of this city 
 was then mainly an open field. Streets 
 and avenues have since been laid out aiul 
 completed, squares and public grounds 
 enclosed and ornamented, until the city 
 which bears his name, although com- 
 paratively inconsiderable in numbers 
 and wealth, has become quite fit to be 
 
664 
 
 THE ADDITION TO TIIE CAPITOL. 
 
 the seat of gorernment of a great and 
 united people. 
 
 Sir, may the consequences of the duty 
 which you perform so auspiciously to- 
 day, equal those which flowed from his 
 act. Nor this only; may the principles 
 of your administration, and the wisdom 
 of your political conduct, be such, as 
 that the world of the present day, and 
 all history hereafter, may be at no loss 
 to perceive what example you have made 
 your study. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, I now bring this ad- 
 dress to a close, by expressing to you, 
 in the words of the great Roman orator, 
 the deepest wish of my heart, and which 
 I know dwells deeply in the hearts of 
 all who hear me: "Duo modo haec opto; 
 
 Unum, UT MORIEXS POPULUM ROMANUM 
 
 LiBERCM relixqi-am; hoc mihi majus 
 a diis immortalibus dari nihil potest: 
 alteram, ut ita cuique eveniat, ut de 
 republica quisque mereatur." 
 
 And now, fellow-citizens, with hearts 
 void of hatred, envy, and malice towards 
 our own countrymen, or any of them, or 
 towards the subjects or citizens of other 
 governments, or towards any member 
 of the great family of man; but exult- 
 ing, nevertheless, in our own peace, se- 
 curity, and happiness, in the grateful 
 remembrance of the past, and the glo- 
 rious hopes of the future, let us return 
 to our homes, and with all humility and 
 devotion offer our thanks to the Father 
 of all our mercies, political, social, and 
 relij^ous. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 IMPRESSMENT. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Lord Ashbitrton. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, 
 August 8, 1842. 
 
 Mr Lord, — "We have had several con- 
 Tersations on the subject of impressment, 
 but I do not understand that your Lordship 
 has instructions from your government to 
 negotiate upon it, nor does the government 
 of the United States see any utility in 
 opening such negotiation, unless the Brit- 
 ish government is prepared to renounce the 
 practice in all future wars. 
 
 No cause has produced to so great an 
 extent, and for so long a period, disturbing 
 and irritating influences on the political re- 
 lations of the United States and England, 
 as the impressment of seamen by British 
 cruisers from American merchant-vessels. 
 
 From the commencement of the French 
 Revolution to the breaking out of the war 
 between the two countries in 1812, hardly 
 a year elapsed without loud complaint and 
 earnest remonstrance. A deep feeling of 
 opposition to the right claimed, and to the 
 practice exercised under it, and not unfre- 
 quently exercised without the least regard 
 to what justice and humanity would have 
 dictated, even if the right itself had been 
 admitted, took possession of the public 
 mind of America, and this feeling, it is 
 well known, co-operated most powerfully 
 with other causes to produce the state of 
 hostilities which ensued. 
 
 At different periods, both before and 
 Bince the war, negotiations have taken 
 place between the two governments, with 
 the hope of finding some means of quiet- 
 ing these complaints. At some times, the 
 effectual abolition of the practice has been 
 requested and treated of; at other times, its 
 temporary suspension ; and at other times, 
 again, the limitation of its exercise, and 
 Bome security against its enormous abuses. 
 A common destinv has attended these 
 
 efforts ; they have all failed. Tlie ques- 
 tion stands at this moment where it stood 
 fifty years ago. The nearest approach to 
 a settlement was a convention proposed in 
 1803, and wliich had come to the point of 
 signature, wlien it was broken off in con- 
 sequence of the British government insist- 
 ing that the narrow seas should be expressly 
 excepted out of the spliere over which the 
 contemplated stipulation against impress- 
 ment should extend. The American Min- 
 ister, Mr. King, regarded this exception as 
 quite inadmissible, and chose rather to 
 abandon the negotiation than to acquiesce 
 in the doctrine which it proposed to es- 
 tablish. 
 
 England asserts the right of impressing 
 British subjects, in time of war, out of 
 neutral merchant-vessels, and of deciding 
 by her visiting officers who, among the 
 crews of such merchant-vessels, are British 
 subjects. She asserts this as a legal exer- 
 cise of the prerogative of the crown ; which 
 prerogative is alleged to be foimded on the 
 English law of the perpetual and indis- 
 soluble allegiance of the subject, and his 
 obligation under all circumstances, and for 
 his whole life, to render military service to 
 the crown whenever required. 
 
 This statement, made in the words of 
 eminent British jurists, shows at once that 
 the English claim is far broader than the 
 basis or platform on wliich it is raised. 
 The law relied on is Englisli law ; the obli- 
 gations insisted on are obligations existing 
 between the crown of England and its sub- 
 jects. This law and these obligations, it is 
 admitted, may be such as Knghind may 
 choose they shall be. But tlien tliey must 
 be confined to the parties. Impressment 
 of seamen out of and beyond English ter- 
 ritory, and from on board the sliips of 
 other nations, is an interference with the 
 rights of other nations ; is further, there- 
 fore, than English prerogative can legally 
 
656 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 extend; and is nothing but an attempt to 
 enforce the peculiar law of England be- 
 yond the tlominions and jurisdiction of the 
 crown. The claim asserts an extra-terri- 
 torial authority for the law of British pre- 
 rogative, and assumes to exercise this extra- 
 territorial authority, to the manifest injury 
 and annoyance of the citizens and subjects 
 of otlier states, on board their own vessels, 
 on the high seas. 
 
 Every merchant-vessel on the seas is 
 rightfully considered as part of the terri- 
 tory of the coimtry to wliich it belongs. 
 The entry, therefore, into such vessel, be- 
 ing neutral, by a belligerent, is an act of 
 force, and is, prima facie, a wrong, a tres- 
 pass, which can be justified only when done 
 for some purpose allowed to form a suffi- 
 cient justification by the law of nations. 
 But a British cruiser enters an American 
 merchant-vessel in order to take therefrom 
 supposed British subjects ; offering no jus- 
 tification, therefore, under the law of na- 
 tions, but claiming the right under the law 
 of England respecting the king's preroga- 
 tive. This cannot be defended. English 
 soil, English territory, English jurisdiction, 
 is the appropriate sphere for the operation 
 of English law. The ocean is the sphere 
 of the law of nations; and any merchant- 
 Tessel on the seas is by that law under the 
 protection of the laws of her own nation, 
 and may claim immunity, unless in cases 
 in which that law allows lier to be entered 
 or visited. 
 
 If this notion of perpetual allegiance, 
 and the consequent power of the preroga- 
 tive, was the law of the world ; if it 
 formed part of the conventional code of 
 nations, and was usually practised, like the 
 right of visiting neutral ships, for the pur- 
 pose of discovering and seizing enemy's 
 property, then impressment might be de- 
 fended as a common right, and there would 
 be no remedy for the evil till the national 
 code should be altered. But this is by no 
 means the case. There is no such princi- 
 ple incorporated into the code of nations. 
 The doctrine stands only as English law, 
 not as a national law ; and English law can- 
 not be of force beyond English dominion. 
 Whatever duties or relations that law 
 creates between the sovereign and his sub- 
 ject* can be enforced and maintained only 
 within the realm, or proper possessions or 
 territory of the sovereign. There may be 
 quite as just a jjrerogative rigiit to the 
 property of subjects as to their personal 
 services, in an exigency of the state ; but 
 
 no government thinks of controlling by iti 
 own laws property of its subjects situated 
 abroad ; much less does any government 
 think of entering the territory of another 
 power for the purpose of seizing such proi>- 
 erty and applying it to its own uses. As 
 laws, the prerogatives of the crown of 
 England have no obligation on persons or 
 property domiciled or situated abroad. 
 
 " When, therefore," says an authority 
 not unknown or unregarded on either side 
 of the Atlantic, " we speak of the right of 
 a state to bind its own native subjects 
 everywhere, we speak only of its own 
 claim and exercise of sovereignty ever 
 them when they return witliin its own ter- 
 ritorial jurisdiction, and not of its right to 
 compel or require obedience to such laws, 
 on tlie part of other nations, within their 
 own territorial sovereignty. On the con- 
 trary, every nation has an exclusive right 
 to regulate persons ami things witiiin its 
 own territory, according to its sovereign 
 will and public polity." 
 
 The good sense of these principles, tlieir 
 remarkable pertinency to the subject now 
 under consideration, and the extraordinary 
 consequences resulting from the British doc- 
 trine, are signally manifested by that which 
 we see taking place every day. England 
 acknowledges herself overburdened with 
 population of the poorer classes. Every 
 instance of the emigration of persons of 
 those classes is regarded by her as a bene- 
 fit England, therefore, encourages emi- 
 gration ; means are notoriously supplied 
 to emigrants, to assist their conveyance, 
 from public funds; and the New World, 
 and most especially these United States, 
 receive the many thousands of her subjects 
 thus ejected from the bosom of their native 
 land by the necessities of their condition. 
 They come away from poverty- and distress 
 in over-crowded cities, to seek employment, 
 comfort, and new homes in a country of 
 free institutions, possessed by a kindred 
 race, speaking their own language, and 
 having laws and usages in many respects 
 like those to which they have been accus- 
 tomed ; and a country wliich, upon the 
 whole, is found to possess more attractions 
 for persons of their character and condi- 
 tion than any other on the face of the 
 globe. It is stated that, in the quarter of 
 the year ending with June last, more than 
 twenty-six thousand emigrants left tiie sin- 
 gle port of Liverpool for llie United States, 
 being four or five times as many as left the 
 same port within the same period for the 
 
IMPRESSMENT. 
 
 657 
 
 British colonics and all other parts of tho 
 world. Of these crowds of emigrants, 
 many arrive in our cities in circumstances 
 of great destitution, and the charities of 
 the country, both public and private, are 
 severely taxed to relieve their immediate 
 wants. In time tiiey mingle witii tiie new 
 community in which they find themselves, 
 and seek means of living. Some find em- 
 "plojnieiit in tlie cities, others go to the 
 frontiers, to cultivate lands reclaimed from 
 the forest ; and a greater or less number of 
 the residue, becoming in time naturalized 
 citizens, enter into the merchant service 
 under the flag of their adopted country. 
 
 Now, my Lord, if war should break out 
 between England and a European power, 
 can any thing be more unjust, any tiling 
 more irreconcilable to the general senti- 
 ments of mankind, than that England 
 should seek out these persons, thus en- 
 couraged by her and compelled by their 
 own condition to leave their native homes, 
 tear them away from their new employ- 
 ments, their new political relations, and 
 their domestic connections, and force them 
 to undergo the dangers and hardships of 
 military service for a country which has 
 thus ceased to be their own country ? Cer- 
 tainly, certainly, my Lord, there can be but 
 one answer to this question. Is it not far 
 more reasonable that England should either 
 prevent such emigration of her subjects, or 
 that, if she encourage and promote it, she 
 should leave them, not to the embroilment 
 of a double and contradictory allegiance, 
 but to their own voluntary choice, to form 
 such relations, political or social, as they 
 see fit, in the country where they are to 
 find their bread, and to the laws and insti- 
 tutions of which they are to look for de- 
 fence and protection ? 
 
 A question of such serious importance 
 ought now to be put at rest. If the United 
 States give shelter and protection to those 
 whom the policy of England annually casts 
 upon their shores, — if, by the benign in- 
 flueiices of their government and institu- 
 tions, and by the happy condition of the 
 country, those emigrants become raised 
 from poverty to comfort, finding it easy 
 even to become landholders, and being 
 allowed to partake in the enjoyment of all 
 civil rights, — if all this may be done, (and 
 all this is done, under the countenance and 
 encouragement of England herself,) is it 
 not higli time that, yielding that which had 
 its origin in feudal ideas as inconsistent 
 with the present state of society, and espe- 
 
 42 
 
 cially with the intercourse and relationi 
 subsisting between the Old World and the 
 New, England shoukl at length formally 
 disclaim all right to the services of such 
 persons, and renounce all control over their 
 conduct ? 
 
 But impressment is subject to objections 
 of a niucli wider range. If it could be 
 justified in its api)lication to those who are 
 declared to be its only objects, it still re- 
 mains true that, in its e.xercise, it touchee 
 the political rights of other governments, 
 and endangers the security of their own 
 native subjects and citizens. The sover- 
 eignty of the state is concerned in maintain- 
 ing its exclusive jurisdiction and possession 
 over its merchant-ships on the seas, except 
 so far as the law of nations justifies in- 
 trusion upon that possession for special pur- 
 poses ; and all experience has shown, that 
 no member of a crew, wherever born, is 
 safe agamst impressment when a ship is 
 visited. 
 
 The evils and injuries resulting from the 
 actual practice can hardly be overstated, 
 and have ever proved themselves to be such 
 as should lead to its relinquishment, even if 
 it were founded in any defensible principle. 
 The difficulty of discriminating between 
 English subjects and American citizens has 
 always been found to be great, even when 
 an honest purpose of discrimination has 
 existed. But the lieutenant of a man-of- 
 war, having necessity for men, is apt to be 
 a summary judge, and his decisions will be 
 quite as significant of his own wants and 
 his own power as of the truth and justice 
 of the case. An extract from a letter of 
 Mr. King, of the 13th of April, 1797, to the 
 American Secretary of State, shows some- 
 thing of the enormous extent of these wrong- 
 ful seizures. 
 
 " Instead of a few, and these in many in- 
 stances equivocal cases, I have," says he, 
 " since the month of July past, made appli- 
 cation for the discharge from British men 
 of-war of two hundred and seventy-one 
 seamen, who, stating themselves to be 
 xVmericans, have claimed my interference. 
 Of tliis number, eighty-six have been or- 
 dered by the Admiralty to be discharged, 
 thirty-seven more have been detained as 
 Britisii subjects or as American volunteers, 
 or for want of proof that they are Amer- 
 icans, and to my applications for tlie dis- 
 charge of the remaining one hundred and 
 forty-eight I have received no answer; the 
 sliips on board of which these seamen were 
 detained havuig, in many instances, sailed 
 
658 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 before an examination was made in conse- 
 quence of my application. 
 
 " It is certain that some of those who 
 have applied to me are not American cit- 
 izens, but the exceptions are, in my opinion, 
 few, and the evidence, exclusive of certifi- 
 cates, has been such as, in most cases, to 
 satisfy me that the applicants were real 
 Americans, who have been forced into the 
 British service, and who, with singular con- 
 stancy, have generally persevered in refus- 
 ing pay or bounty, though in some instances 
 they have been in service more than two 
 years." 
 
 But the injuries of impressment are by 
 r.o means confined to its immediate sub- 
 jects, cr the individuals on whom it is prac- 
 tised. Vessels suffer from the weakening 
 of their crews, and voyages are often de- 
 layed, and not unfrequently broken up, by 
 subtraction from the number of necessary 
 hands by impressment. And what is of 
 still greater and more general moment, the 
 fear of impressment has been found to cre- 
 ate great difficulty in obtaining sailors for 
 the American merchant service in times of 
 European war. Seafaring men, otherwise 
 inclined to enter into that service, are, as 
 experience has shown, deterred by the fear 
 of finding themselves erelong in compulsory 
 militar}' service in British ships of war. 
 Many instances liave occurred, fully estab- 
 lished by proof, in which raw seamen, na- 
 tives of the United States, fresh from the 
 fields of agriculture, entering for the first 
 time on shipboard, have been impressed be- 
 fore they made the land, placed on the 
 decks of British men-of-war, and compelled 
 to serve for years before they could ob- 
 tain their release, or revisit their country 
 and their homes. Such instances become 
 known, and their effect in discouraging 
 young men from engaging in the merchant 
 service of their country can neither be 
 doubted nor wondered at. More than all, 
 my Lord, the practice of impressment, when- 
 ever it has existed, has produced, not con- 
 ciliation and good feeling, but resentment, 
 exasperation, and animosity between the two 
 great coninieroial countries of the world. 
 
 In the calm and quiet which have suc- 
 ceeded the late war, a condition so favor- 
 able for dispassionate consideration, Eng- 
 land herself has evidently seen the harsh- 
 ness of impressment, even when exercised 
 on seamen in her own merchant service, 
 and she lias adopted measures calculated, 
 if not to renounce the power or to abolish 
 the practice, yet at least to supersede its 
 
 necessity by other means of manning the 
 royal navy more compatible with justice 
 and the rights of individuals, and far more 
 conformable to the spirit and sentiments of 
 the age. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the govern- 
 ment of the United States has used the oc- 
 casion of your Lordship's pacific mission to 
 review this whole subject, and to bring il 
 to your notice and that of your govern-* 
 ment. It has reflected on the past, pon- 
 dered the condition of the present, and 
 endeavored to anticipate, so far as might 
 be in its power, the probable future; and I 
 am now to communicate to your Lordship 
 the result of these deliberations. 
 
 The American government, then, is pre- 
 pared to say that the practice of impressing 
 seamen froin American vessels cannot here- 
 after be allowed to take place. That prac- 
 tice is founded on principles which it does 
 not recognize, and is invariably attended by 
 consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of 
 such formidable magnitude, as cannot be 
 submitted to. 
 
 In the early disputes between the two 
 governments on this so long contested topic, 
 the distinguished person to whose hands 
 were first intrusted the seals of this depart- 
 ment ^ declared, that "the simplest rule will 
 be, that the vessel being American shall 
 be evidence that the seamen on board are 
 such." 
 
 Fifty years' experience, the utter failure of 
 many negotiations, and a careful reconsid- 
 eration, now iiad, of the whole subject, at 
 a moment when the passions are laid, and 
 no present interest or emergency exists to 
 bias the judgment, have fully convinced 
 this government that this is not only the 
 simplest and best, but the only rule, which 
 can be adopted and observed, consistently 
 with the rights and honor of the United 
 States and the security of their citizens. 
 That rule announces, therefore, what wiU 
 hereafter be the principle maintained by 
 their government. In every regularly doc- 
 umented American merchant-vessel the crew 
 who navigate it will find their protection 
 in the flag which is over them. 
 
 This announcement is not made, my 
 Lord, to revive useless recoUectjons of the 
 past, nor to stir the embers from fires which 
 have been, in a great degree, smothered by 
 many years of peace. Far otherwise. Its 
 pur])ose is to extinguish those fires effectu- 
 ally, before new incidents ari.^e to fan them 
 into flame. The communication is in the 
 1 Mr. Jefferson. 
 
IMTUKSSMENT. 
 
 669 
 
 spirit of peace, aud for tlie sake of peace, 
 and springs from a deep and conscientious 
 conviction that liiiih interests of botli na- 
 tions require tliis so long contested and con- 
 troverted subject now to be finally put to 
 rest. I persuade myself that you will do 
 justice to this frank and sincere avowal of 
 motives, and that you will communicate 
 your sentiments in this respect to your gov- 
 tnnnent. 
 
 This letter closes, my Lord, on my part, 
 our official correspondence; and I gladly 
 use the occasion to offer j'ou the assurance 
 of my high and sincere regard. 
 
 Daniel Webstek. 
 Lord Ashburton, &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. 
 
 Washington, August 9, 1842. 
 
 SiH, — The note you did me the honor of 
 addressing me the 8th instant, on the sub- 
 ject of impressment, sliall be transmitted 
 without delay to my government, and will, 
 you may be assured, receive from them the 
 deliberate attention which its importance 
 deserves. 
 
 The object of my mission was mainly the 
 settlement of e.xisting subjects of differ- 
 ence ; and no differences have or could 
 have arisen of late years with respect to 
 impressment, because the practice has, since 
 the peace, wholly ceased, and cannot, con- 
 sistently wilh existing laws and regulations 
 for manning her Majesty's navy, be, mider 
 the present circumstances, renewed. 
 
 Desirous, however, of looking far for- 
 ward into futurity to anticipate even possi- 
 ble causes of disagreement, and sensible of 
 the anxiety of the American people on this 
 grave subject of past irritation, I should be 
 sorry in any way to discourage the attempt 
 at some settlement of it ; and, although 
 without authority to enter upon it here dur- 
 ing the limited continuance of my mission, 
 I entertain a confident hope that this task 
 may be accomplished, when undertaken 
 with the spirit of candor and conciliation 
 which has marked all our late negotiations. 
 
 It not being our intention to endeavor 
 now to come to any agreement on tliia sub- 
 ject, I may be permitted to abstain from 
 noti ing at length your very ingenious ar- 
 gumentK relating to it, and from discussing 
 the graver matters of constitutional and 
 international law growing out of them. 
 These sufficiently show that the question is 
 one requiring calm onsideration; though I 
 
 must, at tlie same time, admit that they 
 prove a strong necessity of some settlement 
 for the preservation of that good under- 
 standing whicli, I trust, we may flatter our- 
 selves that our joint labors have now su*' 
 COC'lcd in establishing. 
 
 1 am wfU aware that the laws of our two 
 countries maintain opposite principles re- 
 specting allegiance to the sovereign. Amer- 
 ica, receiving every year by thousands the 
 emigrants of Europe, maintains the doc- 
 trine suitable to her condition, of the right 
 of transferring allegiance at will. The 
 laws of Great 15ritain have maintained from 
 all time the opposite doctrine. The duties 
 of allegiance are held to be indefeasible; 
 and it is believed that this doctrine, imder 
 various modifications, prevails in most, if 
 not in all, the civilized states of Europe. 
 
 Emigration, the modern mode by which 
 the population of the world peaceably finds 
 its level, is for the benefit of all, and emi- 
 nently for the benefit of humanity. The 
 fertile deserts of America are gradually ad- 
 vancing to the highest state of cultivation 
 and production, while the emigrant acquires 
 comfort which his own confined home could 
 not afford him. 
 
 If there were any thing in our laws or 
 our practice on either side tending to im- 
 pede this march of providential humanity, 
 we could not be too eager to provide a 
 remedy ; but as this does not appear to be 
 the case, we may safely leave this part of 
 the subject without indulging in abstract 
 speculations having no material practical 
 application to matters in discussion be- 
 tween us. 
 
 But it must be admitted that a serious 
 practical question does arise, or, rather, has 
 existed, from practices formerly attending 
 the mode of manning the British navy in 
 times of war. The principle is, that all 
 subjects of the crown are, in case of neces- 
 sity, bound to serve their countrj-, and the 
 seafaring man is naturally taken for the 
 naval service. This is not, as is sometimes 
 supposed, any arbitrary principle of mon- 
 archical government, but one founded on 
 the natural duty of every man to defend 
 the life of his coimtry ; and all the analogy 
 of your laws would lead to the conclusion, 
 that the same principle would hold good in 
 the United States if their geographical posi- 
 tion did not make its application unneces- 
 sary. 
 
 The very anomalous condition of the 
 two countries with relation to each other 
 here creates a serious difficulty. Our peo- 
 
660 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 pie are not distinguisVable ; and, owing to 
 the peculiar habits of sailors, our vessels 
 are very generally manned from a common 
 Btock. It is difficult, under these circum- 
 stances, to execute laws which at times 
 have been thought to be essential for the 
 existence of the country, without risk of in- 
 jury to others. The e.xtcnt and importance 
 of those injuries, however, are so formida- 
 ble, that it is admitted that some remedy 
 should, if possible, be applied ; at all events, 
 it must be fairly and honestly attempted. 
 It is true, tliat during the continuance of 
 peace no practical grievance can arise; but 
 it is also true, that it is for that reason the 
 proper season for the calm and deliberate 
 onsideration of an important subject. I 
 
 have much reason to hope that a satisfac- 
 tory arrangement respecting it may be 
 made, so as to set at rest all appreliension 
 and an.xiety ; and I will only further repeat 
 the assurance of the sincere dispoiition of 
 my government favorably to consider all 
 matters having for their object the promot- 
 ing and maintaining undisturbed kind and 
 friendly feelhigs with the United States. 
 
 I beg, Sir, on this occasion of closii'.g tlie 
 correspondence with you connected with 
 my mission, to express the satisfaction I 
 feel at its successful termination, and to 
 assure you of my high consideratioc and 
 personal esteem and regard. 
 
 ASHBCRIOK. 
 
 Hon. Daniel Websieb, &c., &e., &c 
 
 THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 
 
 Mr. Webster to Mr. Everett. 
 
 Department of State, Washlugton, 
 March 28, 1843. 
 
 Sir, — I transmit to you with this de- 
 ^patch a message from tiie President of the 
 United States to Congress, communicated 
 on the 27th of February, and accompanied 
 by a report made from tliis department to 
 the President, of the substance of a de- 
 spatch from Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Fox, 
 which was by him read to me on the 24th 
 ultimo. 
 
 Lord Aberdeen's despatch, as you will 
 perceive, was occasioned by a passage in 
 the President's message to Congress at the 
 opening of its late session. The particular 
 passage is not stated by his Lordship; but 
 no mistake will be conunitted, it is pre- 
 sumed, in considering it to be that which 
 was quoted by Sir Robert Peel and other 
 gentlemen in the debate in the House of 
 Commons, on the answer to the Queen's 
 speech, on the 3d of February. 
 
 The President regrets that it should have 
 become necessary to liold a dii)lomatic cor- 
 respondence upon the subject of a commu- 
 nication from the lioad of tlie executive 
 governinent to the legishiture, ilrawiiig after 
 it, as in this case, the further necessity of 
 referring to observations made by persons 
 in higli and responsible stations, in debates 
 of ])ublic bodies. Sucli a necessity, how- 
 ever, seems to be unavoidably incurred in 
 
 consequence of Lord Aberdeen's despatch ; 
 for, although the President's recent message 
 may be regarded as a clear exposition of 
 his opinions on the subject, yet a just re- 
 spect for her Majesty's government, and 
 a disposition to meet all questions with 
 promptness, as well as with frankness and 
 candor, require that a formal answer should 
 be made to that despatch. 
 
 The words in the message at the opening 
 of the session which are complained of, it 
 is suj)posed, are tlie following: "Although 
 Lord Aberdeen, in his correspondence with 
 the American envoys at London, expressly 
 disclaimed all right to detain an American 
 ship on the high seas, even if found with a 
 cargo of slaves on board, and restricted the 
 British ])retension to a mere claim to visit 
 and inquire, yet it could not well be dis- 
 cerned by the Executive of the Uniled 
 States how such visit and inquiry could be 
 made without doti-ntion on the voyage, and 
 consequent interruption to tlie trade. It 
 was regarded as the right of spiirch, pre 
 seiited only in a new form an> t-xpressed ic 
 ditTiTent words; and I thert'fore felt it to 
 be my duty distinctly to declare, in my an- 
 nual message to Congress, that no such con- 
 cession could be made, ami that the I'nited 
 States had both the will and the ability to 
 enforce their own laws, and to jirotect tht-ir 
 (lag from being used for purposes wholly 
 forbidden by tiiose laws, and obnoxious to 
 the moral censure of tlu' world 
 
THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 
 
 GCl 
 
 This statement would tend, as Lord Aher- 
 deen thinks, to convey the supposition, not 
 onlj' that the question of tlie right of search 
 had been disavowed by tlie British pleni- 
 potentiary at Washington, but that Great 
 Britain had made concessions on that point. 
 
 Lord Aberdeen is entirely correct it say- 
 ing that the claim of a riuht of search was 
 not discussed during the late negotiation, 
 and that neither was any concession re- 
 quired by this government, nor made by 
 that of her Britannic Majesty. 
 
 The eighth and ninth articles of the 
 treaty of Washington constitute a mutual 
 8tii)ulation for concerted efforts to abolish 
 the African blave-trade. The stipulation, 
 it may be admitted, has no other effects on 
 the pretensions of cither party than this : 
 Great Britain had claimed as a ri(iht that 
 which this government could not admit to 
 be a right, and, in the exercise of a just and 
 proper spirit of amity, a mode was resorted 
 to which might render unnecessary both 
 the assertion and the denial of such claim. 
 
 There probably are those who think that 
 what Lord Aberdeen calls a right of visit, 
 and which he attempts to distinguish from 
 the right of searcli, ought to have been ex- 
 pressly acknowledged by the government 
 of the United States. At the same time, 
 there are those on the other side who think 
 that the formal surrender of such right of 
 visit should have been demanded by the 
 United States as a precedent condition to 
 the negotiation for treaty stipulations on 
 the subject of the African slave-trade. But 
 the treaty neither asserts the claim in terms, 
 nor denies the claim in terms ; it neither 
 formally insists upon it, nor formally re- 
 nounces it. Still, the whole proceeding 
 shows that the object of the stipulation 
 was to avoid such differences and disputes 
 as had already arisen, and the serious prac- 
 tical evils and inconveniences which, it can- 
 not be denied, are alwaj^s liable to result 
 from the practice which Great Britain had 
 asserted to be lawful. These evils and in- 
 conveniences had been acknowledged by 
 both governments. They had been such as 
 to cause much irritation, and to threaten to 
 disturb the amicable sentiments which pre- 
 vailed between them. Both governments 
 were sincerely desirous of abolishing the 
 slave-trade ; both governments were equally 
 desirous of avoiding occasion of complaint 
 by their respective citizens and subjects ; 
 and both governments regarded the eighth 
 and ninth articles as effectual for their 
 avowed purpose, and likely, at the same 
 
 time, to preserve all fritndly relations, and 
 to take away causes of future individual 
 complaints. The treaty of Washington was 
 intended to fulfil the obligations entered 
 into by the treaty of Glitiit. It stands by 
 itself; is clear and intelligible. It speaks 
 its own language, and manifests its own 
 purpose. It needs no interi)retation, and 
 requires no comment. As a fact, as an im- 
 portant occurrence in national intercourse, 
 it ma}' have important bearings on existing 
 questions respecting the public law; and 
 individuals, or perhaps governments, may 
 not agree as to what these bearings really 
 are. Great Britain has discussions, if not 
 controversies, with other great European 
 states upon the subject of visit or search. 
 These states will naturally make their own 
 connucntary on the treaty of Washington, 
 and draw their own inferences from the 
 fact that such a treaty has been entered 
 into. Its stipulations, in the mean time, 
 are plain, explicit, and satisfactory to both 
 parties, and will be fulfilled on the part of 
 the United States, and, it is not doubted, on 
 the part of Great Britain also, with the 
 utmost good faith. 
 
 Holding this to be the true character of 
 the treaty, I might, perhaps, excuse myself 
 from entering into the consideration of the 
 grounds of that claim of a right to visit 
 merchant-ships for certain purposes, in time 
 of peace, which Lord Aberdeen asserts for 
 the British government, and declares that it 
 can never surrender. But I deem it riglit, 
 nevertheless, and no more than justly re- 
 spectful toward the British government, not 
 to leave the point without remark. 
 
 In his recent message to Congress, the 
 President, referring to the language of 
 Lord Aberdeen in his note to Mr. Everett 
 of tlie 20th of December, 1841, and in his 
 late despatch to Mr. Fox, says : " These 
 declarations may well lead us to doubt 
 whether the apparent difference between 
 the two governments is not rather one of 
 delinition than of principle." 
 
 Lord Aberdeen, in his note to you of the 
 20th of December, says : " The undersigned 
 again renounces, as he has already done in 
 the most explicit terms, any right on the 
 part of the British government to search 
 American vessels in time of peace. The 
 right of search, except when specially con- 
 ceded by treaty, is a pure belligerent 
 right, and can have no existence on the 
 high seas during peace. The undersigned 
 apprehends, however, that the right of 
 search is not confined to the verification 
 
662 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 of the nationality of tlie vessel, but also 
 extends to the object of the voyage and 
 the nature of the cargo. Tlie sole pur- 
 pose of the British cruisers is to ascertain 
 w lether the vessels they meet with are 
 really American or not. The right asserted 
 has, in truth, no resemblance to the right of 
 search, either in principle or practice. It is 
 simply a right to satisfy the party who has 
 a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, 
 that the vessel actually is what her colors 
 announce. Tiiis right we concede as freely 
 as we exercise. The British cruisers are not 
 instructed to detain American vessels under 
 any circumstances wliatever; on tlie con- 
 trary', they are ordered to abstain from all 
 interference with them, be tho^- slavers or 
 otherwise. But where reasonable suspicion 
 exists that the American flag has been 
 abused for tlie purpose of covering the 
 vessel of another nation, it would appear 
 scarcely credible, had it not been made 
 manifest by the repeated protestations of 
 their representative, that the government 
 of the United States, wliich has stigma- 
 tized and abolished the trade itself, should 
 object to the adoption of such means as are 
 indispensably necessary for ascertaining the 
 truth." 
 
 And in his recent despatch to Mr. Fox 
 his Lordship further says : " That the Presi- 
 dent iniglit be assured that Great Britain 
 would always respect the just claims of 
 tlie United States. That the Britisli gov- 
 ernment made no pretension to interfere in 
 any manner whatever, either by detention, 
 visit, or search, with vessels of the United 
 States, known or believed to be such, but 
 that it still maintained, and would exercise 
 when necessarj', its own riglit to ascertain 
 the genuineness of any flag which a sus- 
 pected vessel might bear; that if, in the ex- 
 ercise of this right, either from involuntary 
 error, or in spite of every precaution, loss 
 or injury should be sustained, a prompt 
 reparation would be afforded; but tliat it 
 ehould entertain, for a single instant, the 
 notion of abandoning the riglit itself, would 
 be quite impossible." 
 
 Tliis, then, is the British claim, as asserted 
 by her Majesty's government. 
 
 In his remarks in the speech already re- 
 ferred to, in tlie House of Commons, the 
 first minister of the crown said : " There is 
 nothing more distinct than the riglit of visit 
 is from the right of search. Search is a 
 belligerent right, and not to be exercised 
 in time of peace, except when it has been 
 conceded by treaty. The right of search 
 
 extends not only to the vessel, but to tne 
 cargo also. The right of visit is quite di». 
 tinct from this, though the two are often 
 confounded. The riglit of search, with re 
 spcct to American vessels, we entirely end 
 utterly disclaim ; nay, more, if we knew 
 that an American vessel were furnished 
 with all the materials requisite for the 
 slave-trade, if we knew tliat the decks 
 were prepared to receive hundreds of hu- 
 man beings within a space in which life i« 
 almost impossible, still we should be bound 
 to let that American vessel pass on. But the 
 right we claim is to know whether a vessel 
 pretending to be American, and lioisting the 
 American flag, be l>onaJide American." 
 
 The President's message is regarded as 
 holding opinions in opposition to these. 
 
 The British government, then, supposes 
 that the right of visit and the right of search 
 are essentially distinct in their nature, and 
 that tills difference is well known and gen- 
 erally acknowledged ; that the difference be- 
 tween them consists in their different ob- 
 jects and purposes : one, the visit, having 
 for its object nothing but to ascertain the 
 nationality of the vessel ; the other, the 
 search, by an inquisition, not only into the 
 nationality of the vessel, but the nature 
 and object of her voyage, and the true 
 ownership of her cargo. 
 
 The government of the United States, on 
 the other hand, maintains that there is no 
 such well-known and acknowledged, nor, 
 indeed, any broad and generic difference 
 between what has been usually called visit, 
 and what has been usually called search ; 
 that tlie right of visit, to be effectual, must 
 come, in the end, to include search ; and 
 thus to exercise, in peace, an authority 
 which the law of nations only allows in 
 times of war. If such will-known distinc- 
 tion exists, where are tiie jjroofs of it? 
 What writers of authority on public law, 
 what adjudications in courts cf adnv'ralty, 
 wliat public treaties, recognize it' Ni. suet 
 recognition has presented itself to the gov- 
 ernmcnt of the United States ; but, on the 
 contrary, it understands tiiat jjiiblic writers, 
 courts of law, and solemn treaties have, for 
 two centuries, used the words " visit " and 
 "search" in the same sense. What Great 
 Britain and the United States mean by the 
 " right of search," in its broadest sense, is 
 called \>y Continental writers and jurists 
 by no otlier name than the " right of visit." 
 Visit, tlierefore, as it has been underetood, 
 implies not only a right to inquire into the 
 national character, but to detain tiie vesseL 
 
THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 
 
 063 
 
 to stop the progrtss of tlie voyage, to ex- 
 amine papers, to deeide on tlieir ngularity 
 and authenticity, and to make inquisition 
 on hoard for enemy's property, and into the 
 business wliicli the vessel is engaged in. In 
 other words, it describes the entire riglit of 
 belligerent visitation and search. Such a 
 right is justly disclaimed by the British gov- 
 ernment in time of peace. The^', neverthe- 
 less, insist on a right which they denominate 
 a right of visit, and by that word describe 
 the claim which they assert. It is proper, 
 and due to the importance and delicacy of 
 the questions involved, to take care that, in 
 discussing them, both governments under- 
 stand the terms which may be used in the 
 same sense. If, indeed, it should be mani- 
 fest that the difference between the parties 
 is only verbal, it might be hoped that no 
 harm would be done ; but the government 
 of the United States thinks itself not justly 
 chargeable with excessive jealousy, or with 
 too great scrupulosity in the use of words, 
 in insisting on its opinion that there is no 
 such distinction as the British government 
 maintains between visit and search ; and 
 that there is no right to visit in time of 
 peace, except in the execution of revenue 
 laws or other municipal regulations, in 
 •which cases the right is usually exercised 
 near the coast, or within the marine league, 
 or where the vessel is justly suspected of 
 violating the law of nations by piratical 
 aggression ; but, wherever exercised, it is a 
 right of search. 
 
 Nor can the United States government 
 agree that the term " right " is justly ap- 
 plied to such exercise of power as the Brit- 
 ish government thinks it indispensable to 
 maintain in certain cases. The right as- 
 serted is a right to ascertain whether a 
 merchant-vessel is justly entitled to the 
 protection of the flag which she may hap- 
 pen to liave hoisted, such vessel being in 
 circumstances which render her liable to 
 the suspicion, first, that she is not entitled 
 to the protection of the flag; and secondly, 
 that, if not entitled to it, she is, either by 
 the law of England, as an English vessel, 
 or under the provisions of treaties with 
 certain European powers, subject to tlie 
 supervision and search of British cruisers. 
 And yet Lord Aberdeen says, " that if, in 
 the exercise of this right, either from invol- 
 untary error, or in spite of every precau- 
 tion, loss or injury should be sustained, a 
 prompt reparation would be afforded." 
 
 It is not easy to perceive how these con- 
 eequences can be a hnitted justly to flow 
 
 from the fair exercise of a clear right. If 
 injury be iiroduced by the exercise of a 
 right, it would seem strange that it should 
 be repaired, as if it had been the effect of 
 a wrongful act. The general rule of law 
 certainly is, that, in the proper and prudent 
 exercise of his own rigiit, no one is answer- 
 able for undesigned injuries. It may be 
 said that the riglit is a qualified right; ^hat 
 it is a right to do certain acts of force at 
 the risk of turning out to be wrong-doers, 
 and of being made answerable for all dam- 
 ages. But sucli an argument would prove 
 every trespass to be matter of right, sub- 
 ject only to just responsibility. If force 
 were allowed to such reasoning in other 
 cases, it would follow that an individual's 
 right in his own property was hardly more 
 than a well-founded claim for compensa 
 tion if he should be deprived of it. But 
 compensation is that which is rendered for 
 injury, and is not commutation, or forced 
 equivalent, for acknowledged rights. It 
 implies, at least in its general interpretatio" 
 the commission of some wrongful act. 
 
 But, without pressing further these in- 
 quiries into the accuracy and propriety of 
 definitions and the use of words, I proceed 
 to draw your attention to the thing itself, 
 and to consider what these acts are which 
 the British government insists its cruisers 
 have a right to perform, and to what con- 
 sequences they naturally and necessarily 
 tend. An eminent member of the House 
 of Commons ^ thus states the British claim, 
 and his statement is acquiesced in and adopt 
 ed by the first minister of the crown: — 
 
 "The claim of this coimtry is for the 
 right of our cruisers to ascertain whether a 
 merchant-vessel is justly entitled to the 
 protection of the flag which she may hap- 
 pen to have hoisted, such vessel being in 
 circumstances which rendered her liable to 
 the suspicion, first, that she was not enti- 
 tled to the protection of the flag; and, sec- 
 ondl}', if not entitleil to it, she was, either 
 under the law of nations or the provisions 
 of treaties, subject to the supervision and 
 control of our cruisers." 
 
 Now the question is. By ichat means is 
 this ascertainment to be effected "> 
 
 As we understand the general and set- 
 tled rules of public law, in respect to ships 
 of war sailing under the authority of their 
 government, " to arrest pirates and other 
 public offenders," there is no reason why 
 they may not approach any vessels descried 
 
 1 ^Ir. Wood, now Sir Charles W.-od, Chan- 
 cellor of the Exciiequer. 
 
b64 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 at sea for the purpose of ascertaining their 
 real cliaracters. Such a riglit of approach 
 seems indispensable for the fair and dis- 
 creet exercise of their authority ; and the 
 use of it cannot be justly deemed indicative 
 of any design to insult or injure those they 
 approach, or to impede them in their law- 
 ful commerce. On the other hand, it is as 
 clear that no ship is, under such circum- 
 stances, bouud to he by or wait the ap- 
 proach of any other ship. She is at full 
 liberty to pursue her voyage in her own 
 way, and to use all necessary precautions 
 to avoid any suspected sinister enterprise 
 or hostile attack. Iler right to the free 
 use of the ocean is as perfect as that of 
 any other ship. An entire equality is pre- 
 sumed to exist. She has a right to consult 
 her own safety, but at the same time she 
 must take care not to violate the riglits of 
 others. She may use any precautions dic- 
 tated by the prudence or fears of her offi- 
 cers, either as to delay, or the progress or 
 course of her voyage ; but she is not at 
 liberty to inflict injuries upon other inno- 
 cent parties simply because of conjectural 
 dangers. 
 
 But if the vessel thus approached at- 
 tempts to avoid the vessel approaching, or 
 does not comply with her commander's or- 
 der to send him her papers for his inspec- 
 tion, nor consent to be visited or detained, 
 what is next to be done ? Is force to be 
 used ? And if force be used, may that 
 force be lawfully repelled 1 These ques- 
 tions lead at once to the elemental prin- 
 ciple, the essence of the British claim. 
 Suppose the merchant-vessel be in truth 
 an American vessel engaged in lawful com- 
 merce, and tliat she does not choose to be 
 detained. Suppose she resists the visit. 
 "What is the consequence ? In all cases 
 in which the belligerent right of visit 
 exists, resistance to the exercise of that 
 right is regarded as just cause of condem- 
 nation, both of vessel and cargo. Is that 
 penalty, or what other penalty, to be in- 
 curred by resistance to visit in time of 
 peace f Or suppose that force be met by 
 f;rce, gun returned for gun, and the com- 
 mander of the cruiser, or some of his sea- 
 men, be killed; what description of offence 
 will have been committed ? It would be 
 Baid, in behalf of the commander of the 
 cruiser, that he mistook the vessel for a 
 vessel of I'.nglaml. Brazil, or Portugal ; 
 but does this mistake of his lake away 
 from the American vessel the right of self- 
 defence? The writers of authority declare 
 
 it to be a principle of natural law, that the 
 privilege of self-defence exists against an 
 assailant who mistakes the object of his 
 attack for another whom he had a right to 
 assail. 
 
 Lord Aberdeen cannot fail to see, there- 
 fore, what serious consequences might en- 
 sue, if it were to be admitted that this 
 claim to visit, in time of peace, however 
 limited or defined, should be permitted to 
 exist as a strict matter of right; for if it 
 exist as a right, it must be followed by cor- 
 responding duties and ol)ligations. and the 
 failure to fulfil those duties would natu- 
 rally draw penal consequences after it, till 
 erelong it would become, in truth, little 
 less, or little other, than the belligerent 
 right of search. 
 
 If visit or visitation be not accompanied 
 by search, it will be in most cases merely 
 idle. A sight of papers may be demanded, 
 and papers may be produced. But it is 
 known that slave-traders carry false papers, 
 and different sets of papers. A search for 
 other papers, then, must be made where 
 suspicion justifies it, or else the whole pro- 
 ceeding would be nugatory. In suspicious 
 cases, the language and general appearance 
 of the crew are among the means of ascer- 
 taining the national character of the vessel. 
 The cargo on board, also, often indicates 
 the country from which she comes. Her 
 log-books, showing the i)revious course and 
 events of her voyage, her internal fitting 
 up and equipment, are all evidences for her, 
 or against her, on her allegation of charac- 
 ter. These matters, it is obvious, can only 
 be ascertained by rigorous search. 
 
 It may l)e asked. If a vessel may not be 
 called on to show her papers, why does she 
 carry papers ? No doubt she may be called 
 on to show her papers ; but the question is. 
 Where, when, and by whom ? Not in time 
 of peace, on the high seas, where her rights 
 are equal to the rights of any other vessel, 
 and where none has a right to molest her. 
 The use of her papers is, in time of war, to 
 prove her neutrality when visited by bel- 
 ligerent cruisers ; and in both peace and 
 war, to show her national character, and 
 the lawfulness of her voyage, in those ports 
 of other countries to which she may pro- 
 ceed for purposes of trade. 
 
 It appears to the government of the 
 United States, that the view of tins whole 
 subject which is the most naturally taken 
 is also the most legal, and most in analogy 
 with other cases. British cruisers have a 
 riyrht to detain British merchantmen for 
 
THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 
 
 6G5 
 
 certain purposes ; and they have a right, 
 Required by treaty, to detain nuTelmut- 
 vessels of several other nations for tlio 
 eame purposes. But they have no riglit at 
 all to detain an American merchant-vessel. 
 Tiiis Lord Aberdeen admits in the fullest 
 manner. Any detention of an American 
 vessel by a British cruiser is tlu'refore a 
 wrong, a trespass ; although it may be 
 done under the belief tliat she was a Brit- 
 isli vessel, or tliat she belonged to a nation 
 which had conceded the riglit of such de- 
 tention to the British cruisers, and tlie tres- 
 pass therefore an involuntary trespass. If 
 a ship of war, in tliick weather, or in tlie 
 darkness of the night, fire upon and sink a 
 neutral vessel, under the belief that she is 
 an enemy's vessel, this is a trespass, a mere 
 wrong; and cannot be said to be an act 
 done under any right, accompanied by re- 
 sponsibility for damages. So if a civil 
 officer on land have process against one 
 individual, and through mistake arrest 
 another, this arrest is wholly tortious ; no 
 one would think of saying that it was done 
 under any lawful exercise of authority, 
 subject only to responsibility, or that it 
 was any thing but a mere trespass, though 
 an unintentional trespass. The municipal 
 law does not undertake to lay down before- 
 hand any rule for the government of such 
 cases; and as little, in the opinion of the 
 government of the United States, does the 
 public law of the world lay down before- 
 hand any rule for the government of cases 
 of involuntary tresjjasses, detentions, and 
 injuries at sea; except tlint in both classes 
 of cases law and renson make a distinction 
 between injuries committed through nus- 
 take and injuries committed by design, the 
 former being entitled to fair and just com- 
 pensation, the latter demanding excmphtry 
 damages, and sometimes personal punish- 
 ment. The government of the United 
 States has frequently made known its opin- 
 ion, which it now repeats, that the practice 
 of detaining American vessels, though sub- 
 ject to just compensation if such detention 
 afterward turn out to have been without 
 good cause, however guarded by instruc- 
 tions, or however cautiously exercised, 
 necessarily leads to serious inconvenience 
 and injury. The amount of loss cannot be 
 always well ascertained. Compensation, if 
 it be adequate in the amount, may still 
 necessarily be long delayed; and the pen- 
 dency of such claims always proves trou- 
 blesome to the governments of both coun- 
 tries. Theso detentions, too, frequently 
 
 irritate individuals, cause warm bl od, and 
 produce nothing but ill effects on the ami- 
 cable relations existing between tlic coun- 
 tries. We wish, therefore, to put an end 
 to them, and to avoid all occasions for their 
 recurrence. 
 
 On the whole, the government of the 
 United States, while it lias not conceded a 
 nuitual right of visit or search, as has been 
 done by the parties to the quintuple treaty 
 of December, 1841, does not admit that, by 
 the law and practice of nations, there is ;my 
 such thing as a right of visit, distinguished 
 by well-known rules an<l detinitions from 
 the right of search. 
 
 It does not admit that visit of Ameri- 
 can merchant-vessels by British cruisers is 
 founded on any right, notwithstanding the 
 cruiser may suppose such vessel to be Brit- 
 ish, Brazilian, or Portuguese. We cannot 
 but see that the detention and examination 
 of American vessels by British cruisers has 
 alreadj^ led to consequences, and fear that, 
 if continued, it would still lead to further 
 consequences, highly injurious to the law- 
 ful commerce of the United States. 
 
 At the same time, the government of the 
 United States fully admits that its flag can 
 give no innnunity to jiirates, nor to any 
 other than to regularly (locutnented Ameri- 
 can vessels. It was upon this view of the 
 whole case, and with a firm conviction of 
 the truth of these sentiments, that it cheer- 
 fully assumed the duties contained in the 
 treaty of Washington ; in the hojje that 
 therein' causes of ditficulty and difference 
 might be altogether removed, and that the 
 two i)owcrs migiit be enabled to act con- 
 currently, cordially, and etfectually for the 
 suppression of a traffic which both regard 
 as a reproach upon the civilization of the 
 age, and at war with every principle of 
 humanity and every Christian sentiment. 
 
 The government of the United States 
 has no interest, nor is it under the influence 
 of any opinions, which should lead it to de- 
 sire any derogation of the just auttioritj 
 and rights of maritime power. But in the 
 convictions which it entertains, and in the 
 measures which it has adopted, it has been 
 governed solely by a sincere desire to sup- 
 port tliose principles and tliose ])ractices 
 which it believes to be conformable to pub- 
 lic law, and favorable to the peace and 
 harmony of nations. 
 
 Both houses of Congress, with a remarka- 
 ble degree of imanimity, have made express 
 provisions for carrying into effect the eighth 
 arii'.k of the treaty. An American squad 
 
666 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ron will immediately proceed to the coast 
 of Africa. Instructions for its commander 
 are In tlie course of preparation, and copies 
 will be furnished to the British govern- 
 ment; and the President confidently be- 
 lieves, that the cordial concurrence of the 
 twc governments in the mode agreed on 
 
 will be more effectual tl an any efforts yet 
 made for the suppression of the slave-trade. 
 You will read this despatch to Lord Ab- 
 erdeen, and, if he desire it, give him a copy. 
 I am, Sir, &c., &c. 
 
 Daniel Webbteb 
 Edward Everett, Esq., &c., &:c.. Sec. 
 
 LETTERS TO 
 
 GENERAL CASS ON 
 OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 THE TREATY 
 
 Mr. Webster to General Cass. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, 
 August 29, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — You will see by the enclosed the 
 result of the negotiations lately had in this 
 cit)- between this department and Lor<l Ash- 
 burton. The treaty has been ratified by 
 the President and Senate. 
 
 In communicating to you this treaty, I 
 am directed by the President to draw your 
 particular attention to those articles which 
 relate to the suppression of the African 
 slave-trailc. 
 
 After full and anxious consideration of 
 this verj- delicate subject, the government 
 of the United States has come to the con- 
 clusion which you will see expressed in the 
 President's message to the Senate accom- 
 panying the treaty. 
 
 Without intending or desiring to influ- 
 ence tlie policy of other governments on 
 this important subject, this government has 
 reflected on what was due to its own char- 
 acter and position, as the leading maritime 
 powei on the American continent, left free 
 to make choice of such means for the fulfil- 
 ment of its duties as it should deem best 
 suited to its dignity. The result of its re- 
 flections has been, that it does not concur 
 :n measures which, for whatever benevolent 
 purpose they may be adopted, or with what- 
 ever care and moderation they may be ex- 
 ercised, liave yet a tendency to place the 
 police of the seas in the hands of a single 
 power. It chooses rather to follow its own 
 laws with its own sanction, and to carry 
 them into execution by its own authority. 
 Disposed to act in the spirit of the most 
 cordial concurrence with other nations for 
 the suppression of the African slave-trade, 
 that great reproach of cur times, it deems 
 
 it to be right, nevertheless, that this action, 
 though concurrent, should be independei.t, 
 and it believes that from this independence 
 it will derive a greater degree of efficiency. 
 
 You will perceive, however, that, in 
 the opinion of this government, ' ruising 
 against slave-ilealcrs on the coast of Africa 
 is not all which is necessary to be done in 
 order to put an end to the traflSc. There 
 are markets for slaves, or the unhappy 
 natives of Africa would not be seized, 
 chained, and carried over the ocean into 
 slavery. These markets ought to be shut. 
 And, in the treaty now connnunicated to 
 you, the high contracting parties have stip- 
 ulated " that they will unite, in all becom- 
 ing representations and remonstrances, with 
 any and all powers within whose dominions 
 such markets are allowed to exist ; and 
 tliat they will urge upon all such powers 
 the propriety and duty of closing such 
 markets effectually, at once and for ever." 
 
 You are furnished, tlion, with the Ameri- 
 can policy in regard to this interesting 
 subject. First, independent but cordially 
 concurrent efforts of maritime states to sup- 
 press, as far as possible, the trade on the 
 coast, by means of competent and well- 
 appointed squadrons, to watch the shores 
 and scour the neighboring seas. Secondly, 
 concurrent, becoming remonstrance with all 
 governments who tolerate within their ter- 
 ritories markets for the purchase of African 
 negroes. There is much reason to believe 
 that, if other states, professing equal hos- 
 tility to this nefarious traflic, would give 
 their own powerful concurrence niul co- 
 operation to these remonstrances, the gen- 
 eral effect would be satisfactory, and that 
 the cupidity and crimes of imlividuals would 
 at length cease to find both their temp- 
 tation and their reward in the bosom of 
 
LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 667 
 
 Christian states, and in the permission of 
 Christian governments. 
 
 It will still remain for each government 
 to revise, execute, and make more effectual 
 its own municipal laws aj^ainst its subjects 
 or citizens who shall be concerned in, or in 
 any way give aid or countenance to others 
 concerned in this tralBc. 
 
 You are at liberty to make the contents 
 of this despatch known to the French gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 I have, &c. 
 
 Daxiel Webster. 
 Lewis Cass, Esq., &c., &c., S:c. 
 
 Mr. F. Webster to General Cass. 
 
 Department of State, TVaslilngton, 
 October II, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have to acknowledge the receipt 
 of your despatch of the 17th of September 
 last, requesting permission to return home. 
 
 I have submitted the despatch to the Pres- 
 ident, and am by him directed to say, that 
 although he much regrets that your own 
 wishes should, at this time, terminate your 
 mission to the court of France, where for a 
 long period you have rendered your coun- 
 try distinguished service, in all instances to 
 its Iionor and to the satisfaction of tlie gov- 
 ernment, and where you occupy so favor- 
 able a position, from the more than ordi- 
 nary good intelligence which is understood 
 to subsist between you, personally, and the 
 members of the French government, and 
 from the esteem entertained for you by its 
 illustrious head ; yet he cannot refuse your 
 request to return once more to your home 
 and your country, so that you can pay that 
 attention to your personal and private af- 
 fairs which your long absence and constant 
 employment in the service of your govern- 
 ment may now render most necessary. 
 
 I have. Sir, to tender you, on behalf of 
 the President, his most cordial good wishes, 
 and am, &c. 
 
 Fletcher Webster, 
 
 Acting Secretary of State. 
 Lewis Cass, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. Webster to General Cass. 
 
 Department of State. Wasliington, 
 November 14. 1842. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge 
 the receipt of your despatch of the 3d of 
 October, brought by the " Great AVestern," 
 which arrived at New York on the Gth in- 
 Ptaut, 
 
 It is probable you will have embarked for 
 the United States before my communication 
 can now reach you; but as it is thouglit 
 proper that your letter sliould be answered, 
 and as circumstances may possibly have 
 occurred to delay your departure, this will 
 be tran-^mitted to Paris in tlie ordinary way. 
 
 Your letter has caused the I'resident con- 
 siderable concern. Entertaining a lively 
 sense of the respectable and useful manner 
 in which you have discharged, for several 
 years, the duties of an important foreign 
 mi.-ision, it occasions him real regret and 
 pain, that your last official communication 
 should be of such a character as that he 
 cannot give to it his entire and cordial ap- 
 probation. 
 
 It appears to be intended as a sort of pro- 
 test, a remonstrance, in tiie form of an offi- 
 cial despatcli, against a transaction of the 
 government to which you were not a party, 
 in which 3'ou had no agency whatever, and 
 for the results of which you were no way 
 answerable. This would seem an imusual 
 and extraordir.ary proceeding. In common 
 with every other citizen of the republic, you 
 have an unquestionable riglit to form opinion* 
 upon public transactions, and the conduct 
 of public men ; but it will hardly be thought 
 to be ^mong either the duties or the priv- 
 ileges of a minister abroad to make formal 
 remonstrances and protests against proceed- 
 ings of the various branches of the govern 
 nient at home, upon subjects in relation to 
 which he himself has not been charged with 
 any duty or partaken any responsibility. 
 
 The negotiation and conclusion of the 
 treaty of Washington were in tlie hands of 
 the President and Senate. They had acted 
 upon this important subject according to 
 their convictions of duty and of the public 
 interest, and had ratified tlie treaty. It was 
 a thing done; and although your opinion 
 might be at variance with that of tlie Pres- 
 ident and Senate, it is not perceived that 
 you had any cause of complaint, remon- 
 strance, or protest, more than any other cit- 
 izen who might entertain the same opinion. 
 
 In your letter of the 17th of September, 
 requesting your recall, you observe : " The 
 mail by the steam-packet which left Boston 
 the 1st instant has just arrived, and has 
 brought intelligence of the ratification of 
 the treaties recently concluded with Great 
 Britain. All apprehensions, therefore, of 
 any immediate difficulties with that country 
 are at an end, and I do not see that any 
 public interest demands my further resi- 
 dence in Europe. I can no longer be u«e 
 
668 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ful here, and the state of my private affairs 
 requires my presence at home. Under these 
 circumstances, I beg you to submit to the 
 President my wish for permission to retire 
 from tliis mission, and to return to the 
 United States witliout delay." 
 
 As you appeared at that time not to be 
 acquainti'd witli the provisions of the treaty, 
 it was inferred that your desire to return 
 home proceeded from the conviction that, tn- 
 Oii .ucli as all apprehensions of immediate differ- 
 ences v:ith Great Britain were at an end, you 
 would no longer be useful at Paris. Placing 
 this interpretation on your letter, and be- 
 lieving, as you yourself allege, that your 
 /ong absence abroad rendered it desirable 
 for you to give some attention to your pri- 
 vate affairs in this country, the President 
 lost no time in yielding to your request, 
 and, in doing so, signified to you the senti-. 
 nicnts of approbation which he entertained 
 for your conduct abroad. You may, then, 
 well imagine the great astonishment which 
 tlie declaration contained in your despatch 
 of the od of October, that you could no 
 longer remain in France honorably to your- 
 self or advantageously to the country, and 
 that the proceedings of this governmt'nt liad 
 placed you in a false position, from which 
 you could escape only by returning liome, 
 created in his mind. 
 
 The President perceives not the slightest 
 foundation for these opinions. He cannot 
 see how your usefulness as minister to 
 France should be terminated by the settle- 
 ment of difficulties and disputes between 
 the United States and Great Britain. You 
 have liecn charged with no duties connected 
 with the settlement of these questions, or in 
 any way relating to them, beyond the com- 
 munication to the French government of the 
 President's approbation of your letter of 
 the 13tli of February, written without pre- 
 vious instructions from this department. 
 Tiiis government is not informed of any 
 oth T act or proceeding of yours connected 
 with any part of the subject, nor does it 
 kmv tiiJit your official conduct and charac- 
 tei have become in any other way coimccted 
 with the question of the right of search ; 
 and that letter having been approved, and 
 the Frencli govermuent having been so in- 
 formed, the President is altogetlier at a loss 
 to understand how you can regard yourself 
 as placed in a false position. If the char- 
 acter or conduct of any one was to be af- 
 fected, it could only be the character and 
 conduct of the President himself. The gov- 
 ernment lias done nothhig, most assuredly, 
 
 to place you in a false position. Rep^e8en^ 
 ing j'our country at a foreign court, you 
 saw a transaction about to take place be- 
 tween the government to which you were 
 accredited and another power, which you 
 thought might have a prejudicial effect on 
 the interest of your own country. Think- 
 ing, as it is to be presumed, that the cai«e 
 was too pressing to wait for instructions, 
 you presented a protest against that trans- 
 action, and our government approved your 
 proceeding. This is your only official con- 
 nection with the whole subject. If after 
 this the President had sanctioned the nego- 
 tiation of a treaty, and the Senate had rat- 
 ified it, containing provisions in the highest 
 degree objectionable, however the govern 
 ment might be discredited, your exemption 
 from all blame and censure would have 
 been complete. Having delivered your let- 
 ter of the l.]th of February to the French 
 government, and having received the Pres- 
 ident's approbation of tliat proceeding, it is 
 most manifest that you could be in no de- 
 gree responsible for what should be done 
 afterward, and done by others. The Pres- 
 ident, therefore, cannot conceive what par 
 ticular or personal interest of yours was 
 affected by the subsequent negotiation here, 
 or how the treaty, the result of that nego- 
 tiation, should ]>ut an end to your useful- 
 ness as a public minister at the court of 
 France, or in any way affect your official 
 character or conduct. 
 
 It is impossible not to see that such a pro- 
 ceeding as you have seen fit to adopt might 
 produce much inconvenience, and even se- 
 rious prejudice, to the public interests. 
 Your opinion is against the treaty, a treaty 
 concluded and formally ratified ; and, to 
 sui)i)ort that ojtinion, while yet in the ser- 
 vice of the government, you put a construc- 
 tion on its jirovisions such as your own gov- 
 ernment does not put upon them, such as 
 you must be aware the enlightened public 
 of Europe does not put upon them, and 
 such as England herself has not put ujion 
 them as yet, so far as we know. 
 
 It may become necessary hereafter to 
 publish your letter, in connection with other 
 correspemdence of the mission ; and al- 
 though it is not to be presumed that you 
 looked to such publication, because such a 
 liresuiiqition would impute to you a claim 
 to put forfli your private ojtinions upon the 
 conduct of the President and Senate, in a 
 transaction finished and eondudod, through 
 the imposing form of a i>ublic despatcii,_vet, 
 if publisiied, it cannot be foreseen how far 
 
LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 6G9 
 
 England niiglit licreafter roly on your au- 
 tliority for a construction favorable to her 
 own pretensions, and ineonsistoiit with the 
 interest and honor of the United States. It 
 is certain that you would most sedulously 
 desire to avoid any such attitude. You 
 would be slow to express opinions, in a sol- 
 emn and official form, favorable to another 
 government, and on the authority of which 
 opinions that other government might here- 
 after found new claims or set up new pre- 
 tensions. It is for this reason, as well as 
 others, that the rresident feels so much re- 
 gret at your desire of placing your construc- 
 tion of the provisions of the treaty, and 
 your objections to those provisions, accord- 
 ing to your construction, upon the records 
 of the government. 
 
 Before examining the several objections 
 suggested by you, it nuiy be proper to take 
 notice of what you say upon the course of 
 the negotiation. In regard to this, having 
 observed that the national dignity of the 
 United States had not been compromised 
 down to the time of the President's message 
 to the last session of Congress, you proceed 
 to say : " But England then urged the 
 United States to enter into a conventional 
 arrangement, by which we might be pledged 
 to concur with her in measures for the sup- 
 pression of the slave-trade. Till then we 
 had executed our own laws in our own way. 
 But, yielding to this application, and de- 
 parting from our former principle of avoid- 
 ing European combinations ujion subjects 
 not American, we stipulated in a solenm 
 treaty, that we would carry into effect our 
 own laws, and fixed the mininmm force we 
 would employ for that purpose." 
 
 The President cannot conceive how you 
 should have been led to adventure upon 
 such a statement as this. It is but a tissue 
 of mistakes. England did not urge the 
 United States to enter into this conven- 
 tional arrangement. The United States 
 yielded to no application from England. 
 The proposition for abolishing the slave- 
 trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an 
 American i)roposition ; it originated with 
 the executive government of the United 
 States, which cheerfully assumes all its 
 responsibility. It stands upon it as its 
 own mode of fulfilling its duties, and ac- 
 comjilisliing its objects. Nor have the 
 United States departed, in this treaty, in 
 the slightest degree, from their former 
 principles of avoiding European combina- 
 tions upon subjects not American, because 
 the abolition of the African slave-trade is 
 
 an American subject as empluitiially as it 
 is a European subject; and indeed more so, 
 inasmuch as the government oi the United 
 States took the first great st-ps in declar- 
 ing that trade unlawful, and in attempting 
 its extinction. The aboliticm of this tralhc 
 is an object of the highest interest to the 
 American peojjle and the American go-rern- 
 mtiit ; and you seem strangely to have vtr- 
 lookcd altogether the imiiortant fact, that 
 nearly thirty years ago, by the tre.ity of 
 Ghent, the United States bound themselves, 
 by solenm comjiact with England, to con- 
 tinue " their efforts to jjromote its entire 
 abolition," both parties pledging themselves 
 by that treaty to use their best endeavors 
 to accomplish so desirable an object. 
 
 Again, you speak of an important con- 
 cession made to the renewed application of 
 England. But the treaty, let it be repeated, 
 makes no concession to Englaiul whate\er. 
 It complies with no demand, grants no ap- 
 plication, conforms to no request. All 
 these statements, thus by you made, and 
 which are so exceedingly erroneous, seem 
 calculated to hold up the idea, that in this 
 treaty your government has been acting a 
 subordinate, or even a complying part. 
 
 The President is not a little startled that 
 you should make such totally groundless 
 assumptions of fact, and then leave a dis- 
 creditable inference to be drawn from them 
 He directs me not only to repel this infer- 
 ence as it ought to be repelled, but also to 
 bring to your serious consideration and re- 
 fiection the propriety of such an assumed 
 narration of facts as your despatch, in this 
 respect, puts forth. 
 
 Having informed the department that a 
 copy of the letter of the 24th of August, 
 addressed by me to you, had been deliv- 
 ered to M. Guizot, you proceed to say : " In 
 executing this duty, I felt too well what 
 was due to my government and country to 
 intimate my regret to a foreign power that 
 some declaration had not preceded the 
 treaty, or some stipulation accompanied it, 
 by which the extraordinary pretension of 
 Great Britain to search our shijjs at all 
 times and in all places, first put forth to 
 the world by Lord Palmerston on the 27th 
 of August, 1841, and on the 13th of Octo- 
 ber following again peremptorily claimed 
 as a right by Lord Aberdeen, would have 
 been abrogated, as equally inconi])atible 
 with the laws of nations and with the inde- 
 pendence of the United States. I confined 
 myself, tiierefore, to a simple connnunica- 
 i tion of your letter." It may be true that 
 
670 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the British pretension leads necessarily to 
 consequences as broad and general as your 
 statement But it is no more than fair to 
 state that pretension in the words of the 
 British government itself, and then it be- 
 comes matter of consideration and argu- 
 ment how broad and extensive it really is. 
 The last statement of this pretension, or 
 claim, by the British government, is con- 
 tained in Lord Aberdeen's note to Mr. 
 Stevenson of tlie 13th of October, 1841. 
 It is in these words: — 
 
 "The undersigned readily admits, that to 
 visit and search American vessels in time of 
 peace, when that right of search is not granted 
 by treaty, would be an infraction of pubHc law, 
 and a violation of national dignity and inde- 
 pendence. But no sucli right is asserted. We 
 sincerely desire to respect the vessels of the 
 United States, but we may reasonably expect 
 to know what it really is that we respect. 
 Doubtless the flag is pr'ima fncie evidence of 
 the nationality of the vessel; and, if this evi- 
 dence were in its nature conclusive and irrefra- 
 gable, it ought to preclude all further inquiry. 
 But it is sufficiently notorious that the flags of 
 all nations are liable to be assumed by those 
 who have no right or title to bear them. Mr. 
 Stevenson himself fully admits the extent to 
 which the American flag has been employed for 
 the purpose of covering this infamous traffic. 
 The undersigned joins with Mr. Stevenson in 
 deeply lamenting the evil; and he agrees with 
 him in thinking that the United States ought 
 not to be considered responsible for this abuse 
 of their flag. But if all inquiry be resisted, 
 even wlien carried no further than to ascertain 
 the nationality of the vessel, and impunity be 
 claimed for tlie most lawless and desperate of 
 mankind, in the commission of this fraud, tlie 
 undersigned greatly fears that it may be re- 
 garded as something like an assumption of that 
 responsibility which has been deprecated by Mr. 
 Stevenson 
 
 "The undersigned renounces all pretension 
 on the part of the British government to visit 
 and searcli American vessels in time of peace. 
 Nor is it a? American that such vessels are ever 
 visited ; bu*. it has been the invariable practice 
 of the Bjit'.sii navy, and, as the undersigned 
 believes, oi' all navies in the world, to ascertain 
 by visit the real nationality of merchant-vessels 
 met with on the higli seas, if there be good rea- 
 son to a, ijirehcnd their illegal character 
 
 "The undersigned admits, that, if the Brit- 
 ish cruiser should possess a knowledge of the 
 American characterof any vessel, his visitation of 
 such vessel would be entirely unjustifiable. He 
 further admits, that so much respect and honor 
 ere due to the .American flag, that no vessel 
 bearing it oiigiit to be visited by a Hritish 
 rruiser, except under the most grave suspicions 
 
 and well-founded doubt* of the ge^UInene^s of 
 its character. 
 
 '•The undersigned, although with pain, must 
 add, that if such visit should lead to the proof 
 of the American origin of the vessel, and that 
 she was avowedly engaged iu the slave-trade, 
 exhibiting to view the manacles, fetters, and 
 other usual implements of torture, or had even 
 a number of these unfortunate beings on board, 
 no British officer could interfere further. He 
 might give information to the cruisers of the 
 United States, but it could not be in his own 
 power to arrest or impede the prosecution of the 
 voyage and tlie success of the undertaking. 
 
 "It is obvious, therefore, that the utmost 
 caution is necessary iu the exercise of this right 
 claimed by Great Britain. While we have re- 
 cour.se to the necessary, and, indeed, the only 
 means for detecting imposture, the practice will 
 be carefully guarded and limited to cases of 
 strong suspicion. The undersigned begs to as- 
 sure Mr. Stevenson that the most precise and 
 positive instructions have been issued to her 
 Majesty's officers on this subject." 
 
 Such are the words of the British claim 
 or pretension ; and it stood in this form at 
 the delivery of the President's message to 
 Congress in December last; a message in 
 which you are pleased to say that the Brit- 
 ish pretension was promptly met and firmly 
 resisted. 
 
 I may now proceed to a more particular 
 examination of the objections which you 
 make to the treaty. 
 
 You observe that you think a just self- 
 respect required of the government trf the 
 United States to deiiiainl of Lord Ashbur- 
 ton a distinct renunciation of the British 
 claim to search our vessels previous to en- 
 tering into any negotiation. The govern- 
 ment has thought otherwise; and this ap- 
 pears to be your main objection to the 
 treaty, if, indeed, it be not the only one 
 which is clearly and distinctly stated. The 
 government of the Unitetl States supposed 
 that, in this respect, it stood in a position 
 in which it had no occasion to demand any 
 thing, or ask for any thing, of England. 
 The British pretension, whatever it was, or 
 liowever extensive, was well known to the 
 President at the date of his message to 
 Congress at the opening of the last session. 
 And I must be allowed to remind you how 
 the President treated this subject in that 
 communication. 
 
 " liowever desirous the United States may 
 be," said he, " for the suppression of the slave- 
 trade, they cannot consent to interpolations into 
 the maritime code at the mere will and jileasure 
 of other goveniuieuts. We Jleiiv the right of 
 
LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 671 
 
 tny such interpolation to any one, or all the na- 
 tions of the eartli, without our consent. We 
 cluiin to have a voice in all amendments or 
 alterations of that code; an^l when we are given 
 to understand, as in this instance, by a foreign 
 government, that its treaties with otlier nations 
 cannot be executed without the establishment 
 and enforcement of new principles of mari- 
 time police, to be applied without our consent, 
 we must employ a language neither of equiv- 
 ocal import nor susccptil)le of misconstruction. 
 American citizens prosecuting a lawful commerce 
 in the African seas, under the Hag of their coun- 
 try, are not responsible for the abuse or unlaw- 
 ful use of that flag by others; nor can they 
 rightfully, on account of any such alleged 
 abuses, be interrupted, molested, or detained 
 while on the ocean; and if thus molested and 
 detained while pursuing honest voyages in the 
 usual way, and violating no law themselves, 
 they are unquestionably entitled to indemnity." 
 
 This declaration of the President stands : 
 not a syllable of it has been, or will be, re- 
 tracted. The principles which it announces 
 rest on their inherent justice and proprie- 
 ty, on their conformity to public law, and, 
 so far as we are concerned, on the deter- 
 mination and ability of the country to main- 
 tain them. To these principles the govern- 
 ment is pledged, and that pledge it will be 
 at all times ready to redeem. 
 
 But what is your own language on this 
 point? You say, " This claim (the British 
 claim), thus asserted and supported, was 
 promptly met and firmly repelled by the 
 President in his message at the conmience- 
 nient of the last session of Congress ; and 
 in your letter to me approving the course 
 I had adopted in relation to the question of 
 the ratification by France of the quintuple 
 treaty, you consider the principles of that 
 message as the established policy of the 
 government." And you add, " So far, our 
 national dignity was uncompromitted." If 
 this be so, what is there which has since 
 occurred to compromit this dignity 1 You 
 shall yourself be judge of this ; because 
 you say, in a subsequent part of your let- 
 ter, that " the mutual rights of the par- 
 ties are in this respect wholly untouched." 
 If, then, the British pretension had been 
 promptly met and firmly repelled by the 
 President's message ; if, so far, our national 
 dignity had not been compromitted ; and 
 if, as you further say, our rights remain 
 wholly untouched by any subsequent act or 
 proceeding, what ground is there on which 
 to found complaint against the treaty ? 
 
 But your sentiments on this point do not 
 concur with the opinions of your govern- 
 
 ment. That government is of opinion that 
 the sentiments of the message, which you 
 so highly approve, are reaffirmed and cor- 
 roboratc<l by the treaty, and the corre- 
 spondence accompanying it. Tlie very ob- 
 ject sought to be obtained, in proposing the 
 mode adopted for abolishing the slave-trade 
 was to take away all jintence whatever foi 
 interrupting lawful conuuerce by the visi 
 tation of American vessels. Allow me to 
 refer you, on this point, to tlie following 
 passage in the message of the President to 
 the Senate, accompanying the treaty : — 
 
 " In niy message at the commencement of 
 the present session of Congress, I endeavored 
 to state the principles wiiich this government 
 suii])orts respecting the right of search and the 
 immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining 
 those principles fully, at the same time that ex- 
 isting obligations should be fulfilled, I have 
 thought it most consistent with the dignity 
 and honor of the country that it should exe- 
 cute its own laws and perform its own obli- 
 gations by its own means and its own power. 
 The examination or visitation of the mer- 
 chant-vessels of one nation by the cruisers 
 of another, for any purposes except those 
 known and acUnoivledged by tlie law of na- 
 tions, under whatever restraints or regulations 
 it may take place, may lead to dangerous re- 
 sults. It is far better by other means to super- 
 sede any supposed neces-ity, or any motive, tor 
 such examination or visit. Interference wit!) a 
 merchant-vessel by an armed cruiser is always 
 a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point of 
 national honor, as well as to affect the interests 
 of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, 
 expedient, not only in accordance with the 
 stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, but at the 
 same time as removing all pretext on the part 
 of others for violating the inununities of the 
 American flag ujion the seas, as they exist and 
 are delined by the law of nations, to enter into 
 the articles now submitted to the Senate. 
 
 "The treaty which I now submit to you pro- 
 poses no alteration, mitigation, or modiflcation 
 of the rules of the law of nations. It provides 
 simply, that each of the two governments shi;l 
 maintain on the coast of Africa a suflicient 
 squadron to enforce, separately and respec- 
 tively, the laws, rights, and obligations of the 
 two countries for the suppression of the sLave- 
 trade." 
 
 In the actual posture of things, the 
 President thought that the government of 
 the United States, standing on its own 
 rights and its own solenm declarations 
 would only weaken its position by mak- 
 ing such a demand as appears to you to 
 have been expedient, ^•'e maintain the 
 public law of the worlJ as we receive it 
 
672 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 and understand it to be established. "We 
 defend our own rights and our own honor, 
 meeting all aggression at the boundary. 
 Here we may well stop. 
 
 You are pleased to observe, that " under 
 the circumstances of the assertion of the 
 British claim, in the correspondence of the 
 British secretaries, and of its denial by 
 the President of the United States, the 
 eyes of Europe were upon these two great 
 naval powers ; one of which had advanced 
 a pretension, and avowed her determina- 
 tion to enforce it, which might at any mo- 
 ment bring them into collision." 
 
 It is certainly true that the attention of 
 Europe has been very much awakened, of 
 late years, to the general subject, and quite 
 alive, also, to whatever might take place in 
 regard to it between the United States and 
 Great Britain. And it is highly satisfactory 
 to find, that, so far as we can learn, the 
 opinion is universal that the government 
 of the United States has fully sustained its 
 rights and its dignity by the treaty which 
 has been concluded. Europe, we believe, is 
 happy to see that a collision, which might 
 have disturbed the peace of the whole civ- 
 ilized world, has been avoided in a manner 
 which reconciles the performance of a liigh 
 national duty, and the fulfilment of posi- 
 tive stipulations, with the perfect immunity 
 of flags and the equality of nations upon 
 the ocean. I nmst be permitted to add, 
 that, from every agent of the government 
 abroad who has been heard from on the 
 subject, with the single exception of your 
 own letter, (an exception most deej)ly re- 
 gretted,) as well as from every part of 
 Europe where maritime rights have advo- 
 cates and defenders, we have received 
 nothing but congratulation. And at this 
 moment, if the general sources of informa- 
 tion may be trusted, our example has rec- 
 ommended itself already to the regard of 
 states the most jealous of British ascen- 
 dency at sea ; and the treaty against whicli 
 you remonstrate may soon come to be es- 
 teemed by them as a tit model for imitation. 
 
 Toward the close of your despatch, you 
 are pleased to say : " By the recent treaty 
 we are to keep a squadron ujjon the coast of 
 Africa. We have kept one there for years ; 
 during the whole term, indeed, of these 
 efforts to put a stop to this most iniqui- 
 tous commerce. The effect of the treaty 
 is, therefore, to render it obligatory upon us, 
 by a convention, to do what we have long 
 done voluntarily ; to place our municipal 
 laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of 
 
 Congress." Should the effect of the treaty 
 be to place our municipal laws, in some 
 measure, beyond the reach of Congress, it 
 is sufficient to say that all treaties contain- 
 ing obligations necessarily do this. All 
 treaties of commerce do it ; and, indeed, 
 there is hardly a treaty existing, to which 
 the United States are party, which does 
 not, to some extent, or in some way, re- 
 strain the legislative power. Treaties could 
 not be made without producing this effect. 
 But your remark would seem to imply 
 that, in your judgment, there is something 
 derogatory to the character and dignity 
 of the country in thus stipulating with a 
 foreign power for a concurrent effort to 
 execute the laws of each. It would be a 
 sufficient refutation of this objection to 
 say, that, if in this arrangement there be 
 any thing derogatory to the character and 
 dignity of one party, it must be equally de- 
 rogatory, since the stipulation is perfectly 
 mutual, to the character and dignity of 
 both. But it is derogatory to the char- 
 acter and dignity of neither. The objec- 
 tion seems to proceed still upon the implied 
 ground that the abolition of the slave-trade 
 is more a duty of Great Britain, or a more 
 leading object with her, than it is or should 
 be with us; as if, in this great effort of civ- 
 ilized nations to do away the most cruel 
 traffic that ever scourged or disgraced the 
 world, we had not as high and honorable, 
 as just and merciful, a part to act, as any 
 other nation upon the face of the earth. 
 Let it be for ever remembered, that in this 
 great work of humanity and justice tlie 
 United States took the lead themselves. 
 This government declared the slave-trade 
 unlawful ; and in this declaration it has 
 been followed by the great powers of 
 Europe. This government declared the 
 slave-trade to be piracy ; and in this, too, 
 its example has been followed by other 
 states. This government, this young gov- 
 ernment, springing up in tliis new world 
 within half a century, founded on the 
 broadest principles of civil liberty, and 
 sustained b}' the moral sense and intelli- 
 gence of the people, has gone in advance 
 of all other nations in summoning the civ- 
 ilized world to a common effort to put 
 down and destroy a nefarious traffic re- 
 proachful to human nature. It has not 
 deemed, and it does not deem, tliat it suffers 
 any derogation from its cliaracter or its dig- 
 nity, if, in seeking to fullil this sacred duty, 
 it act, as far as necessary, on fair and equal 
 terms of concert with other powers having 
 
LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 673 
 
 in view the same praiseworthy object. Such 
 were its sentiments wlien it entered into the 
 Bolenm stipulations of the treaty of Glieiit; 
 sucli were its sentiments when it requested 
 England to concur with us in declarinff the 
 slave-trade to be piracy ; and such are tiie 
 sentiments which it has manifested on all 
 other proper occasions. 
 
 Li conclusion, I have to repeat the ex- 
 pression of the President's deep regret at the 
 general tone and character of your letter, 
 and to assure you of the great happiness it 
 would have afforded him if, concurrhig with 
 the judgment of the President and Senate, 
 concurring with what appears to be the 
 general sense of the country-, concurring in 
 all the manifestations of enlightened public 
 opinion in Europe, you had seen nothing in 
 the treaty of the 9th of August to which you 
 could not give your cordial approbation. 
 I have, &c. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 Lewib Cass, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 
 
 Mr. Webster to General Cass. 
 
 Department of State, Washington, 
 December 20, 1842. 
 
 Sir, — Your letter of the 11th instant 
 has been submitted to the President. He 
 directs me to say, in reply, that he continues 
 to regard your correspondence, of which 
 this letter is part, as being quite irregular 
 from the beginning. You had asked leave 
 to retire from your mission ; the leave was 
 granted by the President, with kind and 
 friendly remarks upon the manner in which 
 you had discharged its duties. Having 
 asked for this honorable recall, which was 
 promptly given, you afterward addressed 
 to this department your letter of the 3d of 
 October, which, however it may appear to 
 you, the President cannot but consider as 
 a remonstrance, a protest, against the treaty 
 of the 9th of August; in other words, an at- 
 tack upon his administration for the nego- 
 tiation and conclusion of that treaty. He 
 certainly was not prepared for tliis. It 
 came upon him with no small surprise, and 
 he still feels that you must have been, at 
 the moment, under the influence of tempo- 
 rary impressions, which he cannot but hope 
 have ere now worn away. 
 
 A few remarks upon some of the points 
 of your last letter must now close the cor- 
 respondence. 
 
 In the first place, you object to my hav- 
 ing called your letter of October 3d a "pro- 
 
 48 
 
 test or remonstrance " against a transaction 
 of the government, and observe that you 
 must have been unha])py in the mode of 
 expressing yourself, if you were liable to 
 this charge. 
 
 What other construction your letter will 
 bear, I cannot perceive. The transaction 
 WHS Jinisked. No letter or remarks of your- 
 self, or any one else, could undo it, if desir- 
 able. Your oi)inions were unsolicited. If 
 given as a citizen, then it was altogether 
 unusual to address them to this department 
 in an oilicial despatch ; if as a public func- 
 tionary, the whole subject-matter was quite 
 aside from the duties of your particular 
 station. In your letter you did not pro- 
 pose any thing to be done, but objected to 
 what had been done. You did not suggest 
 any method of remedying what you were 
 pleased to consider a defect, but stated 
 what you thought to be reasons for fearing 
 its consequences. You declared that there 
 had been, in your opinion, an omission to 
 assert American rights ; to which omission 
 you gave the department to understand 
 that you would never have consented. 
 
 In all this there is nothing but protest 
 and remonstrance ; and, though your letter 
 be not formally entitled such, I cannot see 
 that it can be construed, in effect, as any 
 thing else ; and I must continue to think, 
 therefore, that the terms used are entirely 
 applicable and proper. 
 
 In the next place, you say : " You give 
 me to understand that the communications 
 which have passed between us on this sub- 
 ject are to be published, and submitted to 
 the great tribunal of public opinion." 
 
 It would have been better if you had 
 quoted my remark with entire correctness. 
 What I said was, not that the communica- 
 tions which have passed between us are to 
 be published, or must be pul)lished, but that 
 " it may become necessary hereafter to pub- 
 lish your letter, in connection with other 
 correspondence of the mission ; and, al- 
 though it is not to be presumed that you 
 looked to such publication, because such a 
 presumption would impute to you a claim 
 to put forth your jirivate opinions upon tlie 
 conduct of the Presi<ieiit and Situate, in a 
 transaction finished and concluded, through 
 the imposing form of a public despatch ; 
 yet, if published, it cannot be foreseen how 
 far England might hereafter rely on your 
 authority for a construction favorable to 
 her own pretensions, and inconsistent with 
 tiie interest and honor of the United States." 
 
 In another part of your letter you ob- 
 
674 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 eerre : " The publication o my letter, 
 which is to produce this result, is to be 
 the act of the government, and not my act. 
 But if the President should think that the 
 slightest injury to the public interest would 
 ensue from the disclosure of my views, the 
 letter may be buried in the arcliives of the 
 department, and thus forgotten and ren- 
 dered harmless." 
 
 To this I have to remark, in the first 
 place, that instances have occurred in other 
 times, not unknown to you, in which highly 
 important letters from ministers of the 
 United States, in Europe, to their own gov- 
 ernment, have found their way into the 
 newspapers of Europe, when that govern- 
 ment itself held it to be inconsistent with 
 the interest of the United States to make 
 such letters public. 
 
 But it is hardly worth while to pursue a 
 topic like this. 
 
 You are pleased to ask: "Is it the duty 
 of a diplomatic agent to receive all the 
 communications of his government, and to 
 carry into effect their instructions sub silen- 
 tio, whatever may be his own sentiments in 
 relation to them ; or is he not bound, as 
 a faithful representative, to communicate 
 freely, but respectfully, his own views, that 
 these may be considered, and receive their 
 due weight, in that particular case, or in 
 other circumstances involving similar con- 
 siderations 1 It seems to me that the bare 
 enunciation of the principle is all that is 
 necessary for my justification. I am speak- 
 ing now of the propriety of my action, not 
 of the manner in which it was performed. 
 I may have executed the task well or ill. 
 I may have introduced topics unadvisedly, 
 and urged them indiscreetly. All this I 
 leave without remark. I am only endeavor- 
 ing here to free myself from the serious 
 charge which you bring against me. If 
 I have misapprehended the duties of an 
 American dij)lomatic agent upon this sub- 
 ject, I am well satisfied to have withdrawn, 
 by a timely resignation, from a position in 
 which my own self-respect would not per- 
 mit me to remain. And I may express the 
 conviction, that there is no government, 
 certainly none this side of Constantinople, 
 which would not encourage rather than re- 
 buke the free expres.sion of the views of 
 their rejjresentativcs in foreign countries." 
 
 I answer, certainly not. In the letter to 
 which you were replying it was fully stated^ 
 that, " in connnon with every other citizen 
 of the republic, you have an unquestionable 
 right to form oj)iiiiuni5 upon public transac- 
 
 tions and the conduct of public men. But 
 it will hardly be thought to be amot g either 
 the duties cr the privileges of a Ininister 
 abroad to make formal remonstrances and 
 protests against proceedings of the various 
 branches of the government at home, upon 
 subjects in relation to which he himself has 
 not been charged with any duty, or par- 
 taken any responsibility." 
 
 You have not been requested to bestow 
 your approbation upon the treaty, however 
 gratifying it would have been to the Presi- 
 dent to see that, in that respect, you united 
 with other distinguished public agents 
 abroad. Like all citizens of the republic, 
 you are quite at liberty to exercise your 
 own judgment upon that as upon other 
 transactions. But neither your observa- 
 tions nor this concession cover the case. 
 They do not show, that, as a public minis- 
 ter abroad, it is a part of your official func- 
 tions, in a public despatch, to remonstrate 
 against the conduct of the government at 
 home in relation to a transaction in which 
 you bore no part, and for which you were 
 in no way answerable. The President and 
 Senate must be permitted to judge for them- 
 selves in a matter solely within their con- 
 trol. Nor do I know that, in complaining 
 of your protest against their proceedings in 
 a case of this kind, any thing has been done 
 to warrant, on your part, an invidious and 
 unjust reference to Constantinople. If you 
 could show, by the general practice of diplo- 
 matic functionaries in the civilized part of 
 the world, and more especially, if you could 
 show by any precedent drawn from the con- 
 duct of the many distinguished men who 
 have represented the government of the 
 United States abroad, that your letter of 
 the 3d of October was, in its general object, 
 tone, and character, within the usual limits 
 of diplomatic correspondence, you may be 
 quite assured that the President would not 
 have recourse to the code of Turkey in 
 order to find precedents the other way. 
 
 You complain that, in the lettpr from 
 this department of the 14th of November, a 
 statement contained in yours of the 3d of 
 October is caiicd a tissue of mistakes, and 
 you attempt to show the impropriety of this 
 appellation. Let the point be distinctly 
 stated, and what you say in reply be then 
 considered. 
 
 In your letter of October 3d you remark, 
 that " England then urged the United States 
 to enter into a conventional arrangement, 
 by which we might be pledged to concur 
 with her in measures for the suppression of 
 
LETTERS ON THE TREATY OF ^YASIII^'GTON. 
 
 G75 
 
 the slave-trade. Until then, we had exe- 
 cuted our own laws in our own way ; but, 
 yielding to this application, and departing 
 from our former principle of avoiding 
 European combinations ujion subjects not 
 American, we stipulated in a solenm treaty 
 tliat we would carry into effect our own 
 laws, and fixed the minimum force we 
 would employ for that purpose." 
 
 The letter of this department of the 14th 
 of November, having quoted tliis passage, 
 proceeds to observe, that " the President 
 cannot conceive how you should have been 
 led to adventure upon such a statement as 
 this. It is but a tissue of mistakes. Eng- 
 land did not urge tlie United States to enter 
 into this conventional arrangement. The 
 United States yielded to no application 
 from England. The proposition for abolish- 
 ing the slave-trade, as it stands in the treaty, 
 was an American proposition ; it originated 
 with the executive government of the Unit- 
 ed States, which cheerfully assumes all its 
 responsibility. It stands upon it as its own 
 mode of fulfilling its duties and accom- 
 plishing its objects. Nor have the United 
 States departed in the slightest degree from 
 their former principles of avoiding Eu- 
 ropean combinations upon subjects not 
 American ; because the abolition of the 
 African sbive-trade is an American subject 
 as emphatically as it is a European subject, 
 and, indeed, more so, inasmuch as the gov- 
 ernment of the United States took the first 
 great step in declaring that trade unlawful, 
 and in attempting its extinction. The abo- 
 lition of this traffic is an object of the high- 
 est interest to the American people and 
 the American government ; and you seem 
 strangely to have overlooked altogether 
 the important fact, that nearly thirty years 
 ago, by the treaty of Ghent, the United 
 States bound themselves, by solemn com- 
 pact with England, to continue their efforts 
 to promote its entire abolition ; botli parties 
 pledging themselves by that treaty to use 
 their best endeavors to accomplish so de- 
 sirable an object." 
 
 Now, in answer to this, you observe in 
 your last letter : " That the particular mode 
 in which the governments should act in con- 
 cert, as finally arranged in the treaty, was 
 suggested by yourself, I never doubted. 
 And if this is the construction I am to give 
 to your denial of my correctness, there is 
 no difllculty upon the subject. The ques- 
 tion between us is untouched. All I said 
 was, that England continued to prosecute 
 the matter; that she presented it for nego- 
 
 tiation, and that we thereupon consented to 
 its introducti(m. And if Lord Asliburton 
 did not come out with instructions from his 
 government to endeavor to effect some ar- 
 rangement upon this subject, the world has 
 strangely misunderstood one of the great 
 objects of his mission, and I have misun- 
 derstood that paragraj)!! in your first note, 
 where you say that Lord Ashburton comes 
 with full powers to negotiate and settle all 
 matters in discussion between England and 
 the United States. But the very fact of 
 his coming here, and of his acceding to any 
 stipulations respecting the slave-trade, Ih 
 conclusive proof that his government were 
 desirous to obtain the co-operation of the 
 United States. I had supposed that our 
 government would scarcely take the initia- 
 tive in this matter, and urge it upon that of 
 Great Britain, either in Washington or in 
 London. If it did so, I can only express 
 my regret, and confess that I have been led 
 inadvertently into an error." 
 
 It would appear from all this, that that 
 which, in your first letter, appeared as a 
 direct statement of facts, of which you 
 would naturally be presumed to have had 
 knowledge, sinks at last into inferences and 
 conjectures. But, in attempting to escape 
 from some of the mistakes of this tissue, 
 you have fallen into others. "All I said 
 was," you observe, " tliat England con- 
 tinued to prosecute the matter; that she 
 presented it for negotiation, and that we 
 thereupon consented to its introduction." 
 Now the English minister no more pre- 
 sented this subject for negotiation than the 
 government of the United States presented 
 it. Nor can it be said that the United States 
 consented to its introduction in any other 
 sense than it may be said that the British 
 minister consented to it. Will you be good 
 enough to review the series of your own 
 assertions on this subject, and see whether 
 they can possibly be regarded merely as a 
 statement of your own inferences ? Your 
 only authentic fact is a general one, that 
 the British minister came clothed with full 
 power to negotiate and settle all matters in 
 discussion. This, you say, is conclusive 
 proof that his government was desirous to 
 obtain the co-operation of the United States 
 respecting the slave-trade ; and then you 
 infer that England continued to prosecute 
 tills matter, and presented it for negotia- 
 tion, and that the United States consented 
 to its introduction ; and give to this infer- 
 ence the shape of a direct statement of a 
 fact. 
 
676 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 You might have made the same remarks, 
 and with the same propriety, in relation to 
 the subject of the " Creole," that of im- 
 pressment, the extradition of fugitive crim- 
 inals, or any thing else embraced in the 
 treaty or in the correspondence, and then 
 have converted these inferences of jour 
 own into so many facta. And it is upon 
 conjectures like these, it is upon such in- 
 ferences of your own, that you make the 
 direct and formal statement in j-our letter 
 of the 3d of (October, that " England tlien 
 urged the United States to enter into a 
 conventional arrangement, by which we 
 might be pledged to concur witli her in 
 measures for the suppression of the slave- 
 trade. Until then, we had executed our 
 own laws in our own waj' ; but, yielding to 
 this application, and departing from our 
 former j)nnciple of avoiding European 
 combinations upon subjects not American, 
 we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we 
 would carry into effect our own laws, and 
 fixed the minimum force we would employ 
 for that purpose." 
 
 The President was well warranted, there- 
 fore, in requesting your serious reconsider- 
 ation and review of that statement. 
 
 Suppose your letter to go before the 
 public unanswered and uncontradicted; 
 suppose it to mingle itself with the general 
 political history of the country, as an of- 
 ficial letter among the archives of the De- 
 partment of State, would not the general 
 mass of readers understand you as reciting 
 facts, rather than as drawing your own 
 conclusions? as stating history, rather than 
 as presenting an argument ? It is of an 
 incorrect narrative that the President com- 
 plains. It is that, in your hotel at Paris, 
 you should undertake to write a history of 
 a very delicate part of a negotiation car- 
 ried on at Washington, with which you 
 had nothing to do, and of the history of 
 which you had no autlu'ntic information ; 
 and whicli history, as you narrate it, re- 
 flects not a little on the independence, 
 wisdom, and public spirit of the adminis- 
 tration. 
 
 As of tlie liistory of this part of the ne- 
 gotiation you were not well infornu'd, the 
 President cannot but think it would have 
 been more just in yea to have refrained 
 from any attempt to give an account 
 of it. 
 
 You observe, further : " I never men- 
 tioned in my despatch to you, nor in any 
 manner whatever, that our government had 
 conceded to that of England the rigiit to 
 
 search our ships. That idea, howe^c*. p ^r 
 vades your letter, and is very apparent in 
 that part of it which brings to my observa- 
 tion tiie possible effect of my views upon 
 the English government. But in this you 
 do me, though I am sure unintentionally, 
 great injustice. I repeatedly state that 
 the recent treaty leaves the rights of the 
 parties as it found them. My difficulty la 
 not that we have made a positive conces- 
 sion, but that we have acted unadvisedly 
 in not making the abandonment of this 
 pretension a previous condition to any con- 
 ventional arrangement upon the general 
 subject." 
 
 On this part of your letter I must be al- 
 lowed to make two remarks. 
 
 The first is, inasnuich as the treaty gives 
 no color or pretext whatever to any right of 
 searching our ships, a declaration against 
 such a right would have been no more 
 suitable to this treaty tiian a declaration 
 against the right of sacking our towns in 
 time of peace, or any other outrage. 
 
 The rights of merchant-vessels of the 
 United States on the high seas, as under- 
 stood by tliis government, iiave been clearly 
 and fully asserted. As asserted, they will 
 be maintained; nor would a declaration 
 such as you propose have increased either 
 its resolution or its ability in this respect. 
 The government of the United States relies 
 on its own power, and on the effective sup- 
 port of the people, to assert successfully 
 all the rights of all its citizens, on the sea 
 as well as on the land ; and it asks respect 
 for these riglits not as a boon or favor from 
 any nation. The I'resident's message, most 
 certainly, is a clear declaration of what the 
 country understands to be its rights, and 
 liis determination to maintain them ; not a 
 mere promise to negotiate for these riglits, 
 or to endeavor to bring otlier powers into 
 an acknowledgment of tiiem, either express 
 or implied. Whereas, if I understand tlie 
 meaning of this part of your letter, you 
 would ha\ e advised that something should 
 have beeik offered to England wliich she 
 might have regarded as a benefit, but 
 coupled with such a declaration or condi- 
 tion as that, if she received the bo.>j, it 
 would have been a recognition by her of a 
 claim which we make as matter of right. 
 The President's view of the ]iroper duty of 
 the govermnent has certainly been quite 
 different. Being convinced tliat tlie doc- 
 trine asserted by tiiis government is the 
 true doctrine of the law of nations, and 
 feeling tlie competen'y of the government 
 
1.F ITERS ON THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 677 
 
 lo uphold and enforce it for itself, ho has 
 not sought, but, on the contrary, has sedu- 
 lously avoided, to chantic tliis ground, and 
 to place the just riglits of tlie countrj' upon 
 the assent, express or implied, of any power 
 whatever. 
 
 The government thought no skilfully ex- 
 torted promises necessary in any such cases. 
 It asks no such pledges of any nation. If 
 <te character for ability and readiness to 
 V)rotect and defend its own rights and dig- 
 nity is not sufficient to preserve them from 
 violation, no interpolation of promise to re- 
 sp">ct them, ingeniously woven into treaties, 
 would be likely to afford such protection. 
 And as our rights and liberties depend for 
 existence upon our power to maintain them, 
 general and vague protests are not likely 
 to be more effectual than the Chinese 
 method of defending their towns, by paint- 
 ing grotesque and hideous figures on the 
 walls to fright away assailing foes. 
 
 My other remark on this portion of your 
 letter is this : — 
 
 Suppose a declaration to the effect that 
 this treaty should not be considered as 
 sacrificing any American rights had been 
 appended, and the treaty, thus fortified, 
 had been sent to Great Britain, as you pro- 
 pose; and suppose that that government, 
 with equal ingenuity, had appended an 
 equivalent written declaration that it should 
 not be considered as sacrificing any British 
 right, how much more defined would have 
 been the rights of either party, or how 
 much clearer the meaning and interpreta- 
 tion of the treaty, by these reservations on 
 both sides 1 Or, in other words, what is 
 the value of a protest on one side, balanced 
 by an exactly equivalent protest on the 
 other f 
 
 No nation is presumed to sacrifice its 
 rights, or give up what justly belongs to it, 
 unless it expressly stipulates that, for some 
 good reason or adequate consideration, it 
 does make such relinquishment ; and an 
 unnecessary asseveration that it does not 
 intend to sacrifice just rights would seem 
 only calculated to invite aggression. Such 
 proclamations would seem better devised 
 for concealing weakness and apprehension, 
 than for manifesting conscious strength 
 and self-reliance, or for inspiring respect in 
 others. 
 
 Toward the end of your letter you are 
 
 pleased to observe : " The rejection of a 
 treaty, duly negotiated, is a serious ques- 
 tion, to be avoided whenever it can be 
 without too great a sacrifice. Tliough the 
 national faith is not actually committed, 
 still it is more or less engaged. And there 
 were peculiar circumstances, growing out 
 of long-standing difficulties, which rendered 
 an amicable arrangement of the various 
 matters in dispute with England a subject 
 of great national interest. But the nego- 
 tiation of a treaty is a far different sub 
 ject. Topics are omitted or introduced at 
 the discretion of the negotiators, and they 
 are responsible, to use the language of an 
 eminent and able Senator, for ' what it 
 contains and what it omits.' This treaty, 
 in my opinion, omits a most important and 
 necessary stipulation ; and therefore, as it 
 seems to me, its negotiation, in this partic- 
 ular, was unfortunate for the country." 
 
 The President directs me to say, in reply 
 to this, that in the treaty of Washington 
 no topics were omitted, and no topics intro- 
 duced, at the mere discretion of the nego- 
 tiator; that the negotiation proceeded from 
 step to step, and from day to day, under 
 his own immediate supervision and direo 
 tion ; that he himself takes the responsi- 
 bility for what the treaty contains and 
 what it omits, and cheerfully leaves the 
 merits of the whole to the judgment of the 
 country. 
 
 I now conclude this letter, and close this 
 correspondence, by repeating once more 
 the expression of the President's regret 
 that you should have commenced it by 
 your letter of the od of October. 
 
 It is painful to him to have with you 
 any cause of difference. He has a just 
 appreciation of your character and your 
 public services at home and abroad. He 
 cannot but persuade himself that you must 
 be aware yourself, by this time, that your 
 letter of October was written under erro- 
 neous impressions, and that there is no 
 foundation for the opinions respecting the 
 treaty which it expresses; and that it would 
 have been far better on all accounts if no 
 such letter had been written. 
 I have, &c. 
 
 Daniel Webster. 
 
 LEwns Cass, Esq , iMte Minister of the Zruied 
 Slates at Paiii 
 
678 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 THE IIULSEMANN LETTER. 
 
 [As the authorship of thU remarkable 
 paptT has sometimes been imputed to 
 another person, it may be proper to give 
 the facts respecting its preparation, al- 
 though tlify involve nothing more impor- 
 tant tlian a question of literary interest. 
 
 Mr. Webster, as has been stated, arrived 
 at Marshfield on the 9th of October, 1850, 
 where he remained for the space of two 
 weeks. He brought with him the papers 
 relating to this controversy with Austria. 
 Before lie left Washington, he gave to Mr. 
 Hunter, a gentleman then and still tilling 
 an important post in the Department of 
 State, verlial instructions concerning some 
 of the points which would require to be 
 touched in an answer to Mr. lliilsemann's 
 letter of September IJOth, and requested Mr. 
 Hunter to prepare a draft of such an an- 
 swer. This was done, and Mr. Hunter's 
 draft of an answer was forwarded to Mr. 
 Webster at Marslitield. On the 20th of 
 October, 1850, Mr. Webster, being far from 
 well, addressed a note to Mr. Everett,^ re- 
 questing him also to prepare a draft of a 
 reply to Mr. Iliilseniann, at the same time 
 sending to Mr. Everett a copy of Mr. Hiil- 
 semann's letter and of President Taylor's 
 message to the Senate relating to Mr. 
 Mann's mission to Hungary.'- On the 21st 
 Mr. Webster went to his farm in Franklin, 
 New Hauij)shire, where he remained until 
 the 4th of November. While there he re- 
 ceived from Mr. Everett a draft of an an- 
 swer to Mr. Hiiiscnuimi, which was written 
 by Mr. Everett between the 21st and the 
 24th of October. 
 
 Soon after Mr. Webster's death, it was 
 rumored that the real author of " the Hiil- 
 semaim letter" was Mr. Hunter, — a rumor 
 for wiiich ^Ir. Hunter himself was in no 
 way responsible. At a later jjcrioil, in the 
 Bunnner of 1853, the statement obtained 
 currency in the newspaj)ers that Mr. Ever- 
 ett wrote this celebrated despatch, ami 
 many comments were made upon the sup- 
 posed fact that Mr. Everett had claimed its 
 authorship. Tlie facts are, that, wliile at 
 Franklin, Mr. Webster, with Mr. Hunter's 
 and Mr. Everett's drafts both before him, 
 went over the whole subject, making con- 
 siderable changes in ]\Ir. Everett's draft, 
 striking out entire ))aragra])hs with his pen, 
 altering some phrases, and writing new 
 paragraphs of his own, but ailojjting Mr. 
 Everett's draft as the basis of the otHcial 
 
 1 Mr. Everett had flien resigned the Presi- 
 dency of Harvard College. 
 
 ■•^ WiietJRT Mr. HuiUcr's draft was also sent 
 to Mr. Everett, I do not know. The internal 
 evidence would seem to indicate tbat it was; 
 but thu fact is uut material. 
 
 paper ; a purpose wliich he expressed to 
 Mr. Everett on his return to Boston toward 
 Washington. Subsequently, when he had 
 arrivetl in Washington, Mr. Webster caused 
 a third draft to be made, in the State De- 
 partment, from Mr. Everett's paper and hit 
 own additions and alterations. On thii 
 third draft he made still other changes and 
 additions, and, when the whole was com- 
 pleted to his own satisfaction, the official 
 letter was drawn out by a clerk, was sulv 
 mitted to the President, and, being signed 
 by Mr. Webster, was sent to Mr. Hiilse- 
 mann.i 
 
 There are, no doubt, passages and ex- 
 pressions in this letter which are in a tone 
 not usual with Mr. Webster in his dijilo- 
 niatic papers. How he himself regarded 
 the criticisms that might be made upon it 
 may be seen from the following note : — 
 
 [to MR. TICKNOR.] 
 " Washington, January 16, 1S51. 
 
 " Mt dear Sir, — If you say that mv 
 Hiilsemann letter is boastful and rough, I 
 shall own the soft impeachment. My ex- 
 cuse is twofold : 1. I thought it well enough 
 to speak out, and tell the people of Europe 
 who and what we are, and awaken them to 
 a just sense of the unparalleled growth of 
 this country. 2. I wished to write a paper 
 which should touch the national pride, and 
 make a man feel shee/iish and look sillt/ who 
 should speak of disunion. It is curious 
 
 1 I have seen, I believe, all the documents 
 in relation to this matter; viz. Mr. Hunter's 
 draft, Mr. Everett's (in his handwriting, with 
 Jlr. Webster's erasures), the third draft, made 
 at the department under Mr. Web.<ter's direc- 
 tions, and the original added paragra])tis. writ- 
 ten by Mr. Webster with his own hand. To 
 those who are curious about the question of 
 aitllioisliij), it is needt'ul only to say that Mr. 
 Welister adopted Mr. Everett's draft as the basis 
 of the ollieial letter, but that the oliicial letter 
 if a nuicli more vigorous, expanded, and com- 
 plete i)roduction than Mr. Everett's draft. It is 
 described in a note written by Mr. Everett to 
 one of the literarv executors, in ISrvi. as follows : 
 " It can be stated truly tliat what Mr. Webster 
 did himself to the letter was very considerable; 
 and thai he added one half in bulk to the origi- 
 nal draft: and that his additions were of the 
 most significant character. It was verv care- 
 fully elaborated in the department by him, till 
 he was authorized to speak of it as he did at the 
 Kossuth dinner. . . ." 
 
 This refers to what Mr. Webster said in his 
 speech at the Kossuth banquet, in Washington, 
 January 7, 1852 : — 
 
 "May I be so egotistical as to say that I 
 have iiolhing new to say on the suliject of Hun- 
 gary? (jentlemen, in the autumn of the year 
 
THE IIULSEMANN LETTER. 
 
 679 
 
 tVfTdfih but it is certain, that Mr. Mann's 
 private instructions were seen, somehow, 
 by Schwarzcnher<i. 
 
 " Yours always truly, 
 
 " Daniel Webster." '] 
 
 Department of State, Washington, 
 December 21. 18.10. 
 
 The undersigned, Secretary of State of 
 the United States, had the honor to re- 
 ceive, some time ago, the note of Mr. 
 Hulsemann, Chargd d'Affaircs of his Ma- 
 jesty, the Emperor of Austria, of the oOth 
 of September. Causes, not arising from 
 any want of personal regard for Mr. Iliilse- 
 mann, or of proper respect for liis govern- 
 ment, have delayed an answer until the 
 present moment. Having submitted Mr. 
 Hiilsemann's letter to the President, the 
 undersigned is now directed by him to re- 
 turn the following reply. 
 
 The objects of Mr. Hiilsemann's note are, 
 first, to protest, by order of liis govern- 
 ment, against the steps taken by the late 
 President of the United States to ascer- 
 tain the progress and probable result of 
 the revolutionary movements in Hungary ; 
 and, secondly, to complain of some expres- 
 sions in the instructions of the late Secre- 
 tary of State to Mr. A. Dudley INIann, a 
 confidential agent of the United States, as 
 communicated by President Taylor to the 
 Senate on the 28th of March last. 
 
 The principal ground of protest is 
 founded on the idea, or in the allegation, 
 that the government of the United States, 
 by the mission of Mr. Mann and his in- 
 structions, has interfered in the domestic 
 affairs of Austria in a manner unjust or 
 disrespectful toward that power. The 
 President's message was a communication 
 made by him to the Senate, transmitting a 
 correspondence between the executive gov- 
 ernment and a confidential agent of its 
 own. This would seem to be itself a do- 
 mestic transaction, a mere instance of in- 
 
 before last, out of health, and retired to my 
 
 fatenial home among the mountains of New 
 lampshire, I was, by reason of mv physical 
 condition, confined to my house; but I was 
 among the mountains, whose native air I was 
 bound to inspire. Nothing saluted my senses, 
 nothing saluted my mind, or my sentiments, but 
 freedom, lull and entire; and there, gentlemen, 
 near the graves of my ancestors, I wrote a let- 
 ter, which most of you have seen, addressed to 
 the Austrian charge d'affaires. I can say noth- 
 ing of the ability displayed in that letter, but, 
 as to it.s principles, while the sun and moon en- 
 dure, I stand by them." 
 
 1 From Hon! George T. Curtis'8 Life of Daniel 
 Webster, Vol. H. pp. 535-537. 
 
 tercourse between the President and the 
 Senate, in the manner which is usual and 
 iiidisponsahle in communications between 
 the different branches of the government. 
 It was not addressed either to Austria or 
 Hungary; nor was it a public manifesto, 
 to wliicii any foreign state was called on to 
 reply. It was an account of its transac- 
 tions communicated by the executive gov- 
 ernment to the Senate, at the request of 
 that body ; made public, indeed, but made 
 public only because such is the common 
 and usual course of proceeding. It may 
 be regarded as somewhat strange, there- 
 fore, that the Austrian Cabinet did not 
 perceive that, by the instructions given to 
 Mr. Hiilsemann, it was itself interfering 
 with the domestic concerns of a foreign 
 state, the very thing which is the ground 
 of its complaint against the United States. 
 
 This department has, on former occa- 
 sions, informed the ministers of foreign 
 powers, that a communication from the 
 President to either house of Congress is 
 regarded as a domestic communication, of 
 which, ordinarily, no foreign state has cog- 
 nizance ; and in more recent instances, the 
 great inconvenience of making such com- 
 munications the sul)ject of diplomatic cor- 
 respondence and discussion has been fully 
 sliown. If it had been the pleasure of hia 
 Majesty, the Emperor of Austria, during 
 the struggles in Hungary, to have admon- 
 ished the provisional government or the 
 people of that country against involving 
 themselves in disaster, by following the 
 evil and dangerous example of the United 
 States of America in making efforts for the 
 establishment of independent governments, 
 such an admonition from that sovereign 
 to his Hungarian subjects would not have 
 originated here a diplomatic correspond- 
 ence. The President migiit, perhaps, on 
 this ground, have declined to direct any 
 particular reply to Mr. Hiilsemann's note; 
 but out of proper respect for the Austrian 
 government, it has been thought better to 
 answer that note at length ; and the more 
 especially, as the occasion is not imfavor- 
 able for the expression of the general sen- 
 timents of the government of the United 
 States upon the topics which that note 
 discusses. 
 
 A leading subject in Mr. Hiilsemann's 
 note is that of the correspondence be- 
 tween Mr. Hidsemann and the predecessor 
 of the undersigned, in which Mr. Clayton, 
 by direction of the President, informed Mr 
 Hiilsemann " that Mr. Mann's mission had 
 
680 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 no other object in view than to obtain re- 
 liable information as to the true state of 
 affairs in Hungary, by personal observa- 
 tion." Mr. Hiilscmann remarks, that " this 
 explanation can hardly be admitted, for it 
 says very little as to the cause of the 
 anxiety which was felt to ascertain the 
 chances of the revolutionists." As this, 
 however, is the only purpose which can, 
 with any appearance of truth, be attrib- 
 uted to the agency ; as nothing whatever 
 is alleged by Mr. Hiilsemann to have been 
 either done or said by tlie agent inconsist- 
 ent with such an object, the undersigned 
 conceives that Mr. Clayton's explanation 
 ought to be deemed, not only admissible, 
 but quite satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Hiilsemann states, in the course of 
 his note, that his instructions to address 
 his present communication to Mr. Clayton 
 reached Washington about the time of the 
 lamented death of the late President, and 
 that he delaj-ed from a sense of propriety 
 the execution of his task until the new ad- 
 ministration should be fully organized ; " a 
 delay which he now rejoices at, as it has 
 given him the opportunity of ascertaining 
 from the new President himself, on the oc- 
 casion of the reception of the diplomatic 
 corps, that the fundamental policy of the 
 United States, so frequently proclaimed, 
 would guide the relations of the American 
 government with other powers." Mr. Hiilse- 
 mann also observes, that it is in his power 
 to assure the undersigned " that the Im- 
 perial government is disposed to cultivate 
 relations of friendship and good under- 
 standing with the United States." 
 
 The President receives tliis assurance of 
 the disposition of the Imperial government 
 with great satisfaction ; and, in considera- 
 tion of the friendly relations of the two 
 governments thus mutually recognized, and 
 of the peculiar nature of the incidents by 
 wliich their good understanding is supposed 
 by Mr. Hulsemann to have been for a mo- 
 ment disturbed or endangered, the Presi- 
 dent regrets that Mr. lliilscpiann did not 
 feel himself at liberty wholly to forbear 
 from the execution of instructions, which 
 were of course transmitted frcmi Menna 
 without any foresight of the state of things 
 under whicli they would reach Washing- 
 ton. ]f .Mr. Hiilsemann saw, in the ad- 
 dress of the President to the diplomatic 
 corps, sati.tfactory pledges of the senti- 
 ments and the policy of this government 
 in regard to neutral rights and neutral 
 duties, it might, perhaps, have been bet- 
 
 ter not to bring on a discussion of past 
 transactions. But tlie undersigned readily 
 admits that this was a question fit only 
 for the consideration and decision of Mr. 
 Hiilsemann himself ; and although the 
 President does not see that any good pur- 
 pose can be answered by reopening the in- 
 quiry into the propriety of the steps taken 
 by President Taylor to ascertain the prob- 
 able issue of the late civil war in Hungary, 
 justice to his memory requires the under- 
 signed briefly to restate the history of those 
 steps, and to show their consistency with 
 the neutral policy which has invariably 
 guided the government of the United States 
 in its foreign relations, as well as with the 
 established and well-settled principles of 
 national intercourse, and the doctrines of 
 public law. 
 
 The undersigned will first observe, that 
 the President is persuaded his Majesty, the 
 Emperor of Austria, does not think that 
 the government of the United States ought 
 to view with unconcern the extraordinary 
 events which liave occurred, not only in 
 his dominions, but in many other parts of 
 Europe, since February, 1848. The gov- 
 ernment and people of the United States, 
 like other intelligent governments and com- 
 munities, take a lively interest in the move- 
 ments and the events of this remarkable 
 age, in whatever part of the world they 
 may be exhibited. But the interest taken 
 by the United States in those events has 
 not proceeded from any disposition to de- 
 part from that neutrality toward foreign 
 powers, which is among the deepest prin- 
 ciples and the most cherished traditions of 
 the political history of the Union. It has 
 been the necessary effect of the unexam- 
 pled character of the events themselves, 
 which could not fail to arrest the attention 
 of the contemporary world, as they will 
 doubtless fill a memorable page in history. 
 
 But the undersigned goes further, and 
 freely admits that, in proportion as these 
 extraordinary events appeared to have their 
 origin in those great ideas of responsible 
 and popular government, on which the 
 American constitutions themselves are 
 wholly founded, they could not but com- 
 mand the warm sympathy of the people 
 of this country. Well-known circum- 
 stances in their history, indeed their whole 
 history, have made them the representa- 
 tives of purely popular principles of gov- 
 ernment. In this light they now stand be- 
 fore the world. They could not, if they 
 would, conceal their character, their condi 
 
THE HULSEMANN LETTER. 
 
 681 
 
 tion, or their destiny. They could not, if 
 they 90 desired, shut out from the view of 
 mankind the causes which have placed 
 them, in so short a national career, in the 
 Btation wliich they now hold among the 
 civilized states of the world. They could 
 not, if they desired it, suppress either the 
 thoufilits or the hopes wliich arise in men's 
 minds, in other countries, from contem- 
 plating their successful example of free 
 government. That very intelligent and dis- 
 tinguisheil personage, the Emperor Joseph 
 the Second, was among the first to discern 
 this necessary consequence of the Ameri- 
 can Kevolution on the sentiments and 
 opinions of the people of Europe. In a 
 letter to his minister in the Netherlands in 
 1787, he observes, that " it is remarkable 
 that France, by the assistance which she 
 afforded to the Americans, gave birth to 
 reflections on freedom." This fact, which 
 the sagacity of that monarch perceived at 
 60 early a day, is now known and admitted 
 by intelligent powers all over the world. 
 True, indeed, it is, that the prevalence on 
 the other continent of sentiments favorable 
 to republican liberty is the result of the 
 reaction of America upon Europe ; and 
 the source and centre of this reaction has 
 doubtless been, and now is, in these United 
 States. 
 
 The position thus belonging to the United 
 States is a fact as inseparable from their 
 history, their constitutional organization, 
 and their character, as the opposite position 
 of the powers composing the European al- 
 liance is from the history and constitutional 
 organization of the government of those 
 powers. The sovereigns who form that 
 alliance have not unfrequently felt it their 
 right to interfere with the political move- 
 ments of foreign states ; and have, in their 
 manifestoes and declarations, denounced the 
 popular ideas of the age in terms so com- 
 prehensive as of necessity to include the 
 United States, and their forms of govern- 
 ment. It is well known that one of the 
 leading principles announced by the allied 
 80vereiL'i«, after the restoration of the 
 Bourboi..-, is, that all popular or constitu- 
 tional rights are holden no otherwise than 
 as grants and indulgences from crowned 
 heads. " Useful and necessary changes in 
 legislation and administration," says the 
 Laybach Circular of May, 1821, "ought 
 only to emanate from the free will and in- 
 telligent conviction of those whom God 
 has rendered responsible for power ; all 
 that deviates from this line necessarily leads 
 
 to disorder, commotions, .md evils far more 
 insufferable than those wiiich they pretend 
 to remedy." And his late Austrian Ma- 
 jesty, Francis the First, is reported to have 
 declared, in an address to the Hungarian 
 Diet, in 1820, that "the whole world had 
 become foolisii, and, leaving their ancient 
 laws, were in search of imaginary constitu- 
 tions." Tliese declarations amoimt to noth- 
 ing less than a denial of the lawfulness of 
 the origin of the government of the United 
 States, since it is certain that tliat govern 
 ment was established in consequence of a 
 change which did not proceed from thrones, 
 or the permission of crowned heads. But 
 the government of tlie United .States heard 
 these denunciations of its fundamental prin 
 ciples without remonstrance, or the disturb- 
 ance of its equanimity. This was thirty 
 years ago. 
 
 The power of this republic, at the pres- 
 ent moment, is spread over a region one of 
 the richest and most fertile on the globe, 
 and of an extent in comparison with which 
 the possessions of the house of Ilapsburg are 
 but as a patch on the earth's surface. Its 
 population, already twenty-five millions, 
 will exceed that of the Austrian empire 
 witliin the period during which it may be 
 liopeil that i\Ir. lliilsemaim may yet remain 
 in the honorable discharge of his duties to 
 his government. Its navigation and com- 
 merce are hardly exceeded by the oldest 
 and most commercial nations ; its maritime 
 means and its maritime power may be seen 
 by Austria herself, in all seas where she 
 has ports, as well as they may be seen, 
 also, in all other quarters of the globe. 
 Life, liberty, property, and all personal 
 rights, are amply secured to all citizens, and 
 protected by just and stable laws; and 
 credit, public and private, is as well estab- 
 lished as in any government of Continental 
 Europe ; and tiie country, in all its interests 
 and concerns, partakes most largely in all 
 the improvements and progress which dis- 
 tinguish the age. Certainly, the United 
 States may be pardoned, even by those 
 who profess adherence to the principles of 
 absolute government, if they entertain an 
 ardent affection for those popular forms of 
 political organization which have so rapidly 
 advanced their own prosperity and happi- 
 ness, and enabled them, in so short a period, 
 to bring their country, and the hemisphere 
 to which it belongs, to the notice and re- 
 spectful regard, not to say the admiration, 
 of the civilized world. Nevertheless, the 
 United States have abstained, at all time* 
 
682 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 from acts of interference with the political 
 changes of Knrope. They cannot, how- 
 ever, fail to clierish always a lively interest 
 it the fortunes of nations struggling for 
 institutions like their own. But this sym- 
 pathy, so far from being necessarily a lios- 
 tile feeling toward any of the parties to 
 tliese great national struggles, is quite con- 
 sistent witli amicable relations with them 
 Jill The Hungarian people are three or 
 four times as numerous as tlie inhabitants 
 of these United States were wlien the Amer- 
 ican Revolution broke out. They possess, 
 in a distinct language, and in other respects, 
 important elements of a separate nation- 
 ality, which the Anglo-Saxon race in this 
 country did not possess; and if tlie United 
 States wish success to countries contending 
 for popular constitutions and national in- 
 dependence, it is only because they regard 
 such constitutions and sucli national inde- 
 pendence, not as imaginary, but as real 
 blessings. Tiiey claim no riglit, however, 
 to take part in the struggles of foreign 
 powers in order to promote these ends. It 
 is only in defence of his own government, 
 and its principles and character, that the 
 undersigned has now e.xprcssed himself on 
 this subject. But when the people of tlie 
 United States behold the people of foreign 
 countries, witliout any such interference, 
 spontaneously moving toward the adoption 
 of institutions like their own, it surely can- 
 not be expected of them to remain wholly 
 indifferent spectators. 
 
 In regard to the recent very important 
 occurrences in the Austrian enipire, the un- 
 dersigned freely admits tlie difficulty which 
 exists in this country, and is alluded to by 
 Mr. Hiilscmann, of obtaining accurate in- 
 formation. But tliis difficulty is by no 
 means to be ascribed to what Mr. Iliilse- 
 mann calls, with little justice, as it seems 
 to the undersigned, " the mendacious rumors 
 propagated by the American press." For 
 information on this subject, and others of 
 the same kind, the American press is, of 
 necessity, almost wholly dependent upon 
 that of ICurope; and if "mendacious ru- 
 mors " respecting Austrian and Hungarian 
 affairs have been anywhere propagated, 
 that propagation of falsehoods has been 
 most prolific on the European continent, 
 and in countries immediately bordering on 
 tlie Austrian empire. But, wherever these 
 errors may have originated, they certainly 
 justified tiie late President in seeking true 
 information through authentic channels. 
 
 His attention was first particularly drawn 
 
 to the state of things in Hungary by the 
 correspondence of Mr. Stiles, Charge' d'Af- 
 faires of the United States at Vienna. In 
 the autumn of 1848, an application was 
 made to this gentleman, on behalf of Mr. 
 Kossuth, formerly Minister of Finance for 
 the Kingdom of Hungary by Imperial ap- 
 pointment, but, at the time the application 
 was made, chief of the revolutionary gov- 
 ernment. The object of this application 
 was to obtain the good offices of Mr. Stiles 
 with the Imperial government, with a view 
 to the suspension of hostilities. This appli 
 cation became the subject of a conference 
 between Prince Schwarzenberg, the Impe- 
 rial Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. 
 Stiles. The Prince commended the consid- 
 erateness and propriety with which Mr. 
 Stiles had acted ; and, so far from disap- 
 proving his interference, advised him, in 
 case he received a further communication 
 from the revolutionary government in Hun- 
 gary, to have an interview with Prince 
 Windischgratz, who was charged by the 
 Emperor with the proceedings determined 
 on in relation to that kingclom. A week 
 after these occurrences, Mr. Stiles received, 
 througli a secret channel, a communication 
 signed by L. Kossuth, President of the Com- 
 mittee of Defence, and countersigned by 
 Francis Pulszky, Secretar}- of State. On 
 the receipt of this coiiununication, Mr. Stiles 
 had an interview with Prince Windisch- 
 gratz, " who received him with the utmost 
 kindness, and thanked him for his efforts 
 toward reconciling the existing difficulties." 
 Such were the incidents which first drew 
 the attention of the government of the 
 United States particularly to the affairs of 
 Hungary, and the conduct of Mr. Stiles, 
 though acting without instructions in a mat- 
 ter of much delicacy, having been viewed 
 with satisfaction by the Imperial govern- 
 ment, was approved by that of the Ui\ited 
 States. 
 
 In the course of the year 1848, and in 
 the early part of 1849, a considerable num- 
 ber of Hungarians .ame to the United 
 States. Among then were individuals rep- 
 resenting themselves to be in tlie confidence 
 of the revolutionary government, and by 
 these persons tlie I'residciit was strongly 
 urged to recognize the existence of that 
 government. In these applications, and in 
 the manner in which they were viewed by 
 the President, there was nothing unusual; 
 still less was there any thing unauthorized 
 by the law of nations. It is tlie right of 
 every independent state to i nter into fnend 
 
THE IIULSE.MANN LETTER. 
 
 683 
 
 ij relations with every other indoprndpnt 
 etate. Of <;oursc, questions of prudence 
 naturally arise in reference to new states, 
 brouiilit by successful revolutions into the 
 family of nations; but it is not to be re- 
 quired of neutral powers that they should 
 await the recojjnition of the new uovern- 
 nient by tlie jiarent state. No priiicii)le of 
 public law has been more frequently acted 
 upon, within the last thirty years, by the 
 great i)()wers of tlie world, than this. Within 
 that period, eijiht or ten new states have 
 establisiied independent governments, with- 
 in the limits of the colonial dominions of 
 Spain, on this continent ; and in Europe 
 the same thing has been done by Belgium 
 and Greece. The existence of all these 
 governments was recognized by some of 
 the leading powei*s of Europe, as well as by 
 the United States, before it was acknowl- 
 edged by the states from which Ihey had 
 separated themselves. If, therefore, the 
 United States had gone so far as formally 
 to acknowledge the independence of Hun- 
 gary, althougli, as the result has proved, it 
 would have been a precipitate step, and one 
 from wliich no benefit would have resulted 
 to either party ; it would not, nevertheless, 
 have been an act against the law of nations, 
 provided they took no part in her contest 
 with Austria. But the United States did 
 no such thing. Not only did they not yield 
 to Hungary any actual countenance or suc- 
 cor, not only did they not show their ships 
 of war in the Adriatic with any menacing 
 or hostile aspect, but they studiously ab- 
 stained from every thing which had not 
 been done in other cases in times past, and 
 contented themselves with instituting an 
 inquiry into the truth and reality of alleged 
 political occurrences. Mr. Iliilsemann incor- 
 rectly states, imintentionally certainly, the 
 nature of the mission of this agent, when 
 he says that "a United States agent had 
 been despatched to Vienna with orders to 
 watch for a favorable moment to recognize 
 the Hungarian republic, and to conclude a 
 treat}' of commerce with the same." This, 
 indeed, would have been a lawful object, 
 but Mr. iMann's errand was, in the first in- 
 stance, purely one of inquiry. He had no 
 power to act, unless he had first come to 
 the conviction that a firm and stable Hun- 
 garian government existed. "The princi- 
 pal object the President has in view," ac- 
 cording to I'.is instructions, " is to obtain 
 minute and reliable information in regard 
 to Hungary, in connection with the affairs 
 of adj>/ming countries, the probable issue 
 
 of the present rcvolutionnr}' movements, 
 and the chances we may have of forming 
 commercial arrangements with that power 
 favorable to the United States." Again, 
 in the same paper, it is said: "The object 
 of the President is to obtain information in 
 regard to Hungary, and her resources and 
 prospects, with a view to an early recogni- 
 tion of her independence and the formation 
 of commercial relations with her." It was 
 onl}' in the event that the new government 
 should appear, in the opinion of the agent, 
 to be firm and stable, that the President 
 proposed to reconnnend its recognition. 
 
 Mr. Iliilsemann, in qualifying these steps 
 of President Taylor with the epithet of 
 " hostile," seems to take for granted that 
 the inquiry could, in the expectation of the 
 President, have but one result, and that 
 favorable to Hungary. If this were so, it 
 would not change the case. But the Ameri- 
 can government sought for nothing but 
 truth ; it desired to learn the facts through 
 a reliable channel. It so happened, in the 
 chances and vicissitudes of human affairs, 
 that the result was adverse to the Hunga- 
 rian revolution. The American agent, as 
 was stated in his instructions to be not im- 
 likely, found the condition of Hungarian 
 affairs less prosperous than it had been, or 
 liad been believed to be. He did not enter 
 Hungar}', nor hold any direct comnnniica- 
 tion with her revolutionary leaders. He 
 reported against the recognition of her in- 
 dependence, because he found she had been 
 unable to set up a firm and stable govern- 
 ment. He carefully forbore, as his instruc- 
 tions required, to give publicity to his mis 
 sion, and the undersigned supjioses that the 
 Austrian government first learned its ex- 
 istence from the communications of tlie 
 President to the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Hiilsemann will observe from this 
 statement, that Mr. Mann's mission was 
 wholly unobjectionable, and strictly within 
 the rule of the law of nations and the duty 
 of the United States as a neutral power. 
 He will accordingly feel how little founda- 
 tion there is for his remark, that " those 
 who did not hesitate to assume the responsi- 
 bility of sending Mr. Dudley Mann on such 
 an errand should, independent of considera- 
 tions of propriety, have borne in mind that 
 they were exposing their emissary to be 
 treated as a spy." A spy is a jierson sent 
 by one belligerent to gain secret informa- 
 tion of the forces and defences of the other, 
 to be used for hostile purposes. According 
 to practice, he may use deception, undei 
 
684 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the penalty of being lawfully hanged if de- 
 tected. To give this odious name and char- 
 acter to a confidential agent of a neutral 
 power, bearing the commission of his coun- 
 try, and sent for a purpose f ull}- warranted 
 by the law of nations, is not only to abuse 
 language, but also to confound all just 
 ideas, and to announce the wildest and 
 most extravagant notions, such as certainly 
 were not tc have been e.xpected in a grave 
 diplomatic paper; and the President directs 
 the undersigned to say to Mr. Hiilsemann, 
 that the An)erlcan government would re- 
 gard such an imputation upon it by the 
 Cabinet of Austria as that it employs spies, 
 and that in a quarrel none of its own, as 
 distinctly offensive, if it did not presume, 
 as it is willing to presume, that tiie word 
 used in the original German was not of 
 equivalent meaning with " spy " in the Eng- 
 lisli language, or that in some other way 
 the employment of such an opprobrious 
 term may be explained. Had the Imperial 
 government of Austria subjected Mr. Mann 
 to the treatment of a spy, it would liave 
 placed itself without the pale of civilized 
 nations ; and the Cabinet of Vienna may 
 be assured, that if it had carried, or at- 
 tempted to carry, an}' such lawless purpose 
 into effect, in the case of an authorized 
 agent of this government, the spirit of the 
 people of this country would have demand- 
 ed immediate hostilities to be waged by the 
 utmost exertion of the power of the repub- 
 lic, military and naval. 
 
 Mr. Hiilsemann proceeds to remark, that 
 " this extremelj- painful incident, therefore, 
 might have been passed over, without any 
 written evidence being left on our part in 
 the archives of the United States, had not 
 General Taylor thought proper to revive 
 the whole subject by communicating to the 
 Senate, m his message of the 18th [28tli] of 
 last March, the instructions with which 
 Mr. Mann had been furnished on the occa- 
 sion of his mission to Vienna. The pub- 
 acity which has been given to that docu- 
 ment has placed the Imperial government 
 uiiJer the necessity of entering a formal 
 protest, through its oflBcial representative, 
 against the proceedings of the American 
 government, lest that government should 
 construe our silence into approbation, or 
 toleration evi'ii, of the principles wliich ap- 
 pear to have guided its action and the 
 means it has adopted." The undersigned 
 reasserts to Mr. Hiilsemann, and to the 
 Cabinet of Vienna, and in the ])resence of 
 the world, that the steps taken by Presi- 
 
 dent Taylor, now protested against by the 
 Austrian government, were warranted by 
 the law of nations and agreeable to the 
 usages of civilized states. With respect to 
 the communication of Mr. Mann's instruc- 
 tions to the Senate, and the language in 
 which they are couched, it has already 
 been said, and Mr. Hiilsemann must feel 
 the justice of the remark, that these are 
 domestic affairs, in reference to which the 
 government of the Uniteil States cannui 
 admit the slightest responsibility to the 
 government of his Imperial Majesty. No 
 state, deserving the appellation of inde- 
 pendent, can permit the language in which 
 it may instruct its own officers in the dis- 
 charge of their duties to itself to be called 
 in question under any pretext by a foreign 
 power. 
 
 But even if this were not so, Mr. Hiil- 
 semann is in an error in stating that the 
 Austrian government is called an " iron 
 rule " in Mr. Mann's instructions. That 
 phrase is not found in the paper; and in 
 respect to the honorary epithet bestowed 
 in Mr. Mann's instructions on the late chief 
 of the revolutionary government of Hun- 
 gary, Mr. Hiil.sfmann will bear in mind 
 that the government of the United States 
 cannot justly be expected, in a confidential 
 conmiunication to its own agent, to with- 
 hold from an individual an ej)ithet of dis- 
 tinction of which a great part of the world 
 thinks him worthy, mendy on the ground 
 tliat his own government regards him as a 
 rebel. At an early stage of the American 
 Revolution, while Washington was consid- 
 ered by the English government as a rebel 
 chief, he was regarded on the Continent of 
 Europe as an illustrious hero. But the 
 undersigned will take the liberty of bring- 
 ing the Cabinet of Vienna into the presence 
 of its own predecessors, and of citing for 
 its consideration the conduct of the Impe- 
 rial government itself. In the year 1777 the 
 war of the American Revolution was raging 
 all over these United States. England 
 was prosecuting that war with a most reso- 
 lute determination, and by the exc-riion of 
 all her military means to the fullest extent. 
 Germany was at that time at peace with 
 England ; and yet an agent of that Con- 
 gress, which was looked upon by England 
 in no other light than that of a body in 
 open rebellion, was not only received with 
 great respect by the ambassador of the 
 Empress Queen at Paris, and by tlie minis- 
 ter of the Grand Duke of Tuscany (who 
 afterwards mounted th^ Imperial throne) 
 
THE IIULSEiNL^N LETTER. 
 
 685 
 
 Dut resided in Vienna for a cnnsiik'rablc 
 time; not, indeed, officially acknowledged, 
 but treated with courtesy and respect ; and 
 the Eini)eror suffered himself to he per- 
 suaded by that agent to exert himself to 
 prevent the German powers from furnish- 
 ing troops to England to enable her to sup- 
 press the rebellion in America. Neither 
 Mr. llulsemann nor the Cabinet of Vienna, 
 it is ])resumed, will undertake to say that 
 any thing said or done by this government 
 in regard to the recent war between Aus- 
 tria and Hungary is not borne out, and 
 much more than borne out, by this exam- 
 ple of the Imperial Court. It is believed 
 that the Emperor Joseph the Second habit- 
 ually spoke in terms of respect and admira- 
 tion of the character of Washington, as he 
 is known to have done of that of Franklin ; 
 and he deemed it no infraction of neutrality 
 to inform himself of the progress of the 
 revolutionary struggle in America, or to 
 express his deep sense of the merits and 
 the talents of those illustrious men who 
 were then leading their country to inde- 
 pendence and renown. The undersigned 
 may add, that in 1781 the courts of Russia 
 and Austria proposed a diplomatic congress 
 of the belligerent powers, to which the 
 conmiissioners of the United States should 
 be admitted. 
 
 Mr. Iliilsemann thinks that in Mr. Mann's 
 instructions improper expressions are intro- 
 duced in regard to Russia; but the under- 
 signed has no reason to suppose that Russia 
 herself is of that opinion. The only obser- 
 vation made in those instructions about 
 Russia is, that she " has chosen to assume 
 an attitude of interference, and her im- 
 mense preparations for invading and redu- 
 cing the Hungarians to the rule of Austria, 
 from which they desire to be released, gave 
 80 serious a character to the contest as to 
 awaken the most painful solicitude in the 
 minds of Americans." The undersigned 
 cannot but consider the Austrian Cabinet 
 as unnecessarily susceptible in looking 
 upon language like this as a " hostile dem- 
 onstration." If we remember that it was 
 addressed l)y the government to its own 
 agent, and has received publicity only 
 through a conununication from one depart- 
 ment of the American government to an- 
 other, the language quoted must be deemed 
 moderate and inoffensive. The comity of 
 nations would hardly forbid its being ad- 
 dressed to the two imperial powers them- 
 selves. It is scarcely necessary for the 
 undersigned to say, that the relations of 
 
 the United States witli Russia have always 
 been of the most friendly kind, ami have 
 never been deemed by either party to re- 
 quire any compromise of their peculiar 
 views upon subjects of domestic or foreign 
 polity, or the true origin of governments 
 At any rate, the fact that Austria, in her 
 contest with Hungary, had an intimate and 
 faithful ally in Russia, cannot alter the 
 real nature of the question between Aus- 
 tria and Hungary, nor in any way affect 
 the neutral rights and duties of the govern 
 nient of the United States, or the justifiable 
 sympathies of the American people. It is, 
 indeed, easy to conceive, that favor toward 
 struggling Hungary would be not dimin- 
 ished, but increased, when it was seen that 
 the arm of Austria was strengthened and 
 upheld by a power whose assistance threat- 
 ened to be, and which in the end proved 
 to be, overwhelmingly destructive of all 
 her hopes. 
 
 Toward the conclusion of his note Mr. 
 Hiilsemann remarks, that " if the govern- 
 ment of the United States were to think it 
 proper to take an indirect part in the polit- 
 ical movements of Europe, American pol- 
 icy would be exposed to acts of retaliation, 
 and to certain inconveniences which would 
 not fail to affect the commerce and indus- 
 try of the two hemispheres." As to this 
 possible fortune, this hypothetical retalia 
 tion, the government and people of the 
 United States are quite willing to take 
 their chances and abide their destiny. 
 Taking neither a direct nor an indirect part 
 in the domestic or intestine movements of 
 Europe, they have no fear of events of the 
 nature alluded to by Mr. Hiilsemann. It 
 would be idle now to discuss with Mr 
 Hiilsemann those acts of retaliation which 
 he imagines may possibly take place at some 
 indefinite time hereafter. Those question!, 
 will be discussed when they arise ; and Mr. 
 Hiilsemann and the Cabinet at Vienna may 
 rest assured, that, in the mean time, while 
 performing with strict and exact fidelity 
 all their neutral duties, nothing will deter 
 either the government or the people of the 
 United States from exercising, at their own 
 discretion, the rights belonging to them as 
 an independent nation, and of forming and 
 expressing their own opinions, freely and 
 at all times, upon the great political events 
 which may transpire among the civilized 
 nations of the earth. Their own institu- 
 tions stand upon the broadest i)rinciples of 
 civil liberty ; and believing those i)rinci- 
 ples and the fundamental laws in which 
 
b86 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 they are embodied to be eminently favor- 
 able to the prosperity of states, to be, in 
 fact, the only principles of government 
 which meet the demands of the present en- 
 lightened age, the President has perceived, 
 with great satisfaction, that, in the consti- 
 tution recently introduced into the Aus- 
 trian empire, many of these great principles 
 are recognized and applied, and he cher- 
 iahea a sincere wish that they may produce 
 
 the same happy effects throughout his Aus 
 trian Majesty's extensive dominions that 
 they have done in the United States. 
 
 The undersigned has the Iwnor to repeat 
 to Mr. Hiilsemann the assurance of his 
 high consideration. 
 
 Daniel Websteb. 
 
 The Chevalier J. G. HUlsem.v.nn, Charyi 
 d' Affaires of Austria, Washington. 
 
INDEX. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Aberdeen, Lord, on right of search, 661, 
 602. 
 
 Abolition Societies, Mr. Webster's opinion 
 of, 671 ; effect of, 619. 
 
 " Aceerle," word not found in the Constitu- 
 tion, 276. 
 
 Accession and Secession defined, 276. 
 
 Act of 1793, regulating coasting trade, 121 ; 
 of 1800, concerning custom-house bonds, 
 383. 
 
 Acts of 1824, concerning surveys for ca- 
 nals, &c., 245. 
 
 Acts of Legislature of N. H., on Corpora- 
 tion of Dartmouth College, 1, 3; in re- 
 gard to Dartmouth College, 14, 15. 
 
 Adams and Jefferson, eulogy delivered in 
 Fancuil Hall on, 156 ; coincidences in 
 the deatii and lives of, 157 ; made draft 
 of Declaration of Independence, 159 ; 
 compared as scholars, 173. 
 
 Adams, John, eulogized, 41, 140, 156 ; sensa- 
 tion caused by his death, 156; birth and 
 education of, 159; admitted member of 
 Harvard College, 160 ; admitted to the 
 Bar, 160 ; defends British officers, and 
 soldiers, 160 ; offered Chief Justiceship 
 of Massachusetts, 160; letter on the 
 future of America, 160 ; his articles on 
 "Feudal Law," 161; Delegate to Con- 
 gress, 162 ; important resolution reported 
 in Congress by, 163 ; appointed to draft 
 the Declaration, 164 ; power in debate, 
 166; remark of Jefferson on, 166; knowl- 
 edge of Colonial history, 166; supposed 
 speech in favor of the Declaration, 168 ; 
 Minister to France, 170 ; drafts Constitu- 
 tion of >Lissachusetts, 170; concludes 
 treaty with Holland, 170 ; his "Defence 
 of American Constitutions," 171 ; elected 
 to frame and revise Constitution of Mas- 
 sachusetts, 170,171; Vice-President and 
 
 44 
 
 President, 171 ; his schola'-ship, 173 ; navy 
 created in administration of, 175 ; political 
 abuse of, 251 ; letter on opening first Con- 
 gress with praj'er, 522. 
 
 Adams, J. Q., at Bunker Hill, 139; his 
 nominations to office postponed by the 
 Senate, 348 ; remark on Webster, 406 ; 
 opposition to his administration, 434. 
 
 Adams, Samuel, delegate to Congress, 162 ; 
 signs the declaration, 170; movement to 
 open Congress with prayer, 522. 
 
 Addition to the Capitol, speech at laying of 
 the corner-stone of the, 639. 
 
 Address, delivered at laying of corner-stone 
 of Bunker Hill Motmment, 123; on com- 
 pletion of Bunker Hill Monument, 1.36. 
 
 African Slave-Trade, remarks of Mr. Web- 
 ster on, 49 ; Congress has power to re- 
 strain, 233. 
 
 African Squadron, maintained, 672. 
 
 " Aiding and Abetting" defined, 207. 
 
 Airs, tlie martial, of England, 371. 
 
 Aldham, Mr., at dinner of New England 
 Society in New York, 503. 
 
 Allegiance, doctrine of perpetual, 656. 
 
 Allied Sovereigns, claims of, over national 
 independence, 61 ; effect of their meet- 
 ing at Laybach on tlie people, 64 ; their 
 conduct in regard to contest in Greece, 
 69; meeting at Verona, 1822, 153; over- 
 throw Cortez government of Spain, 153. 
 
 America, first railroad in, 126 ; her contri- 
 butions to Europe, 149 ; success of united 
 government in, 499 ; extract from Bishop 
 of St. Asaph on colonies in, 640 • political 
 principles of, 642. 
 
 " American " and " foreign policy," applied 
 to system of tariff, 78. 
 
 American Government, elements of, 148' 
 principles of, in re»;pect to suffrage, 539 , 
 the people limit themselves, 540. 
 
 American Liberty, principles of, 536 ; oui 
 inheritance of, 642. 
 
t)90 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 American People, wliat they owe to repub- 
 lican principles, C6 ; establisli popular 
 government, 132; prepared for popular 
 government, 132. 
 
 American Political Principles, summary 
 of, 642. 
 
 American Revolution, commemorated by 
 Bunker Hill Monument, 125; survivors 
 of, at Bunker Hill, 127 ; character of 
 state papers of, 130; peculiar principle 
 of, 142. 
 
 Amiens, Treaty of, remarks of Mr. Wind- 
 ham on, G22. 
 
 Ancestors, how we may commune with, 26. 
 
 Ancestry, our respect for, 2G. 
 
 Annapolis, meeting at, concerning com- 
 merce, 115. 
 
 Antislavery Conventions, proceedings at, 
 635. 
 
 Appointing and removing power, speech on, 
 394. 
 
 Appropriations by Congress, shall be spe- 
 cific, 418. 
 
 Artisans, law prohibiting emigration of, 
 from Kngland, 91. 
 
 Arts and Science, progress of, in the United 
 States, 648. 
 
 Ashburton, Lord, character of, 484 ; cited 
 491 ; letter to Mr. Webster on impress- 
 ment, 659. 
 
 Astronomy, progress in, 648. 
 
 Attainder, bill of, provision on prohibition 
 of, ly. 
 
 Attorney-General v. Cullum, in regard to 
 charity for town of Burv St. Edmunds, 
 527. 
 
 Austria, agent of United States respect- 
 fully received by, 684. 
 
 Austria and Russia, friendly to United 
 States in 1781, 085. 
 
 B. 
 
 Babylon, astronomers of, 340. 
 
 Bache, A. D., quoted, 528. 
 
 Bacon, Lord, 158. 
 
 Badger, G. E., of N. Carolina, 587 ; voted 
 against ceding New Mexico and Cali- 
 fornia, 6;>2. 
 
 Balance of Trade, doctrine of, 91. 
 
 Bank Charter, benefit of, to stockholders, 
 324 ; first passed by Congress, 327. 
 
 Bank Credit, benefit of, in United States, 
 o64 ; evils arising from abuse of, 364. 
 
 Bank, National, Mr. Ewing's plan for a, 490. 
 
 Bank Notes, must be convertible into specie, 
 365. 
 
 Bank of England, resumes cash payments, 
 81. 
 
 Bank of United States, object of, 81 ; charter 
 vetoed, 321 ; effect of the veto in Western 
 country, 322 ; time for renewal of charter, 
 323 ; benefit of a charter to siockholders, 
 324; foreigners as stockholders in, 325- 
 327; advantage of, in case of war, 327; 
 establisiied, 328; its conduct under Mr. 
 Adams's administration, 434 ; message 
 of President Jackson in regard to, 434 ; 
 how affected by events of 1829, 435; 
 bill for recharter passed by Congress, 
 436; branch of, in New Hampshire, 436; 
 order for removal of deposits, 43(5; act 
 incorporating the, 466. 
 
 Bankruptcy, a uniform system of, remarks 
 on, 471; State laws concerning, ineffect- 
 ual, 471. 
 
 Bankrupt Law, of New York, considered, 
 180; repeal of the, 471. 
 
 Bankrupt Laws, to be established by na- 
 tional authority, 179 ; absolute power of 
 Congress to establish, 180 ; prohibition 
 on State law in regard to, 180. 
 
 Banks, effect of paper issues by, 81 ; safest 
 under private management, 325 ; power 
 of Congress to establish, 328, 334, 335; 
 increase of, 440; suspension of specie 
 payment, 443. 
 
 Barre, Col., extract from speech on Ameri- 
 can Colonists, 237. 
 
 Barrow, Dr., his idea of " rest," xxxix. 
 
 Bell, Senator from Tennessee, 014. 
 
 Benevolent establishments of United States, 
 651. 
 
 Benson, Judge, Commissioner at Annapolis, 
 310. 
 
 Benton, Thomas H., speaks on Foot's reso- 
 lution, 227 ; resolutions of, 407; allusion 
 to, 569. 
 
 Berkeley, Bishop, extract from, 639. 
 
 Berrien, J. M., 570; resolution concerning 
 Mexico, 586 ; proposition in respect to 
 Texas, Oil; vote against ceding New 
 Mexico and California, 632. 
 
 Bill, to limit time of service of certain 
 otBcers, 394, o'Jo. 
 
 Bill of Rights, meaning of, concerning 
 chartered charities, 10. 
 
 Bill of Rights of N. H., articles infringed 
 in re;jard to Dartmouth College, 14 ; pro- 
 hibit retrospective laws, 14. 
 
 Blacks from Northern States, how treated 
 at the South, 620. 
 
 Blake, George, 137. 
 
 Boston, imprisonment of Sir E. Andros in, 
 39; its port closed, 128; resolutions of, 
 in 1820, 463; reception given to Mr 
 Webster in 1812, 481. 
 
 Buwdoin, James, delegate to Congress, 102 
 
INDEX. 
 
 691 
 
 Branch, Mr., resolution of 373. 
 
 Brewster, Elder, 27, 31, 52. 
 
 British Parliament, power claimed by, over 
 charters, 6. 
 
 Brooks, Gov. John, 127. 
 
 Brougham, Mr., his approval of the Monroe 
 dc'cliiration, 155. 
 
 Buena Vista, General Taylor at, 659. 
 
 BufiEa'o, building of a pier at, 424 ; recep- 
 tion of Mr. Webster at, and speech. May 
 22, 1851, 626 ; citizens of, e.\horted to 
 preserve the Union, 027. 
 
 Duller. Justice, extract on government of 
 corporations, 21. 
 
 Bunker Hill Battle, address to survivors of, 
 127 ; important effects of, 129 ; changes 
 of the fifty years following the, 131 ; 
 survivors of, present at completion of 
 monument, 138; described, 141; estab- 
 lished Independence, 142. 
 
 Bunker Hill Monument, address at laying 
 of corner-stone, 123 ; William Tudor's 
 idea of erecting the, 123 ; laying of corner- 
 stone described, 123; completion of, 136; 
 veterans present at completion of, 138 ; 
 " stands on Union," 140 ; description of, 
 151. 
 
 Burke, Edmund, compliment to Charles 
 Fox, x.xxviii ; speeches of, criticised, lii ; 
 bill for economical reform, 469. 
 
 Cabot, George, notice of, 497. 
 
 Calhoun, J. C, President of Senate and 
 Vice-President of United States, 243 
 resolutions on State sovereignty, 273 
 speaks on Wilkins tariff bill, 273 
 course in regard to tariff of 1816, 305 
 resolutions of, relating to slavery, 445 
 supports administration of Van Buren, 
 451 ; remarks of Mr. Webster on the 
 political course of, 453 ; letter on Sub- 
 Treasury bill, 453 ; change in views upon 
 Sub-Treasury bill, 454 ; advocates the 
 State-rights party, 455, 464, 467 ; his ob- 
 ject to unite the entire South, 457 ; attack 
 on Mr. Webster, 458; Mr. Webster's 
 reply to, 458 ; opposes Mr. Dallas's bill 
 for a bank, 460; bill of, for internal im- 
 provements. 466; extract from, on the 
 power of Congress, 467 ; took lead in an- 
 nexing Texas, 609; remarks upon admis- 
 sion of Texas, 611 ; dying testimony to 
 Mr. Webster's conscientiousness, xliii. 
 
 California, proposed annexation of, 563 
 article of cession to United States, 687 
 discovery of gold in, 601 : Mexican pro 
 vincial government overthrown by, 601 
 
 establishment of local government in, 
 602 ; slavery excluded from, by law of 
 nature, 615. 
 
 Canada, cession to England, effect on the 
 colonies, 42. 
 
 Canals, act of 1824 concerning, 245. 
 
 Canning, Mr., opinion concerning Spain 
 and her colonies, 154 ; approval of the 
 Monroe declaration, 156. 
 
 Capitol, speech at laying of corner-stone 
 of the addition to the, 639 ; copy of 
 paper under corner-stone of, 644 ; foun- 
 dation laid by Washington, 644 ; plan for 
 extension of the, 644. 
 
 Carroll, Charles, signer of the Declaration, 
 176. 
 
 Cass, Lewis, Mexican speech of, 554 ; as a 
 Whig candidate, 575 ; as a candidate for 
 President, 584 ; personal character of, 
 584; in favor of the Compromise Line, 
 588 ; requests his recall from France. 667 ; 
 his construction of the treaty of Wash- 
 ington referred to, 669, 671 ; answer of 
 Mr. Webster to, concerning the African 
 squadron, 672. 
 
 Catharine the Second of Russia, policy in 
 respect to Greece, 70. 
 
 Cession, articles of, concerning New Mexico 
 and California, 587. 
 
 Channing, W. E., letter of, on slavery, 624 
 
 Charities, charters granted to founders 
 of, 7 ; colleges included under, 7, 510 ; 
 founder of incorporated, considered vis 
 itor, 7 ; government may incorporate, 7 ; 
 legal signification of, 7; opinion of Lord 
 Holt respecting the power of visitors 
 over, 7 ; right of visitation in, incorpo- 
 rated, 7; case of town of Bury St. Ed- 
 munds, 527 ; schools founded b}^ must 
 include religious instruction, 528. 
 
 Charity, legal definition of, 510. 
 
 Charles the Second, 39. 
 
 Charters, of Dartmouth College (1769), 1; 
 legislative power over, defined, 5 ; power 
 claimed by British Parliament over, 5; 
 Lord Mansfield on rights of, 5; legisla- 
 tive power over, limited, 6 ; granted to 
 founders of charities, 7; opinion of Lord 
 Commissioner Eyre on charities estab- 
 lishefi b}', 9 ; how they affect property of 
 corporations, 12; of the nature of con- 
 tracts, 20, 21 ; how may be altered or 
 varied, 21 ; may be accepted at will, 21 ; 
 no difference between grants of corporate 
 franchise and tangible property, 21 ; of 
 Dartmouth College (1769) is a contract, 
 22 ; obtained by founders of English 
 liberty, 63; New England cobnists r« 
 quired them, 148 
 
692 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Cliateaiibriand, M. de, quoted respecting 
 the Holy Alliance, 64. 
 
 Chatham, Lord, his colonial policy, 42; 
 opinion of the first Congress, 162. 
 
 Ciiaucer, his use of word " green," xx.xi.x. 
 
 Cliicago Road, President's opinion in re- 
 spect to, 353. 
 
 China, trade of United States with, 95. 
 
 Choate, Uufus, 4!l6. 
 
 Christian charity defined, 510 ; spirit of, 
 519. 
 
 Christianity, blended influence of civiliza- 
 tion and, 65 ; observance of the Sabbath 
 a part of, 518 ; essentials of, part of the 
 common law, 527, 530. 
 
 Christian Ministry, and tlie Religious In- 
 struction of tlie Young, speech in Su- 
 preme Court, 505. 
 
 Christian Ministry, opprobrium cast on the, 
 by tiie Girard will, 508; establishment 
 of, by Clirist, 515 ; work of the, in United 
 States, 509. 516. 
 
 Christians, religious belief of, 521. 
 
 Christ's command, " Suffer little children," 
 &c., referred to, 517. 
 
 Church, grants to, cannot be rescinded, 13. 
 
 Civil Law, maxim of, in regard to slavery, 
 573. 
 
 Clay, Henry, speech on tariff of 1824 criti- 
 cised by Mr. AVebster, 78; author of 
 American system of tariff, 78 ; resolution 
 of, relating to slavery in District of Co- 
 lumbia, 445; resolutions in respect to 
 slavery, 600. 
 
 Clayton, J. M., his explanation of Mr. 
 Mann's mission, 680. 
 
 Clerg}', eulogium on, 500. 
 
 Coast Survey of United States, 648. 
 
 College Livings, rights and character of, 10 ; 
 attack of James the Second on Magdalen 
 College, 17. 
 
 Colleges, are eleemosynary corporations, 6, 
 8, 22; charters granteil to, 7; founda- 
 tion of, considered by Lord Mansfield, 9; 
 charters should be kept inviolate, 23 ; 
 party or political infiucnce dangerous to, 
 23. 
 
 Colonies, establishment of Greek, 31 ; of 
 New England, 34, 35; of Roman, 33; of 
 West India, 34, 35; Spanish in South 
 America, 134, 144; New England and 
 Virginia, 144; English and Spanish com- 
 pared, 145; original ground of dispute 
 between England and the, 164 ; American, 
 declared free and independent, 641. 
 
 Colonists, Engli.sh, in America, secret of 
 their success, 147 ; brought their charters, 
 148; in Virginia, failed for want of charter, 
 148; allegiance to the king. 165. 
 
 Columbus, Christopher, portrayed, 124,144. 
 
 Columbus, 0., convention at, in regard to 
 the observance of the Sabbath, 518. 
 
 Commerce, condition of, in 1824, 83 ; 
 its national character, 92, 498 ; how 
 affected bylaws of Confederation, 114 ; 
 power of Congress to regulate, 114, 120; 
 resolutions of New Jersey in regard to, 
 115; Mr. Witiierspoon's motion in Con- 
 gress concernitig, 115; of Virginia in r&- 
 gard to, 115; necessity of vesting Con- 
 gress with power to control, 115; law of 
 Congress paramount, 120; guarded by 
 the general government, 497. 
 
 Compact and government as distinguished 
 from each other, 284. 
 
 Compromise Act, principle of, 489. 
 
 Compromise Line, in respect to slavery, 
 588. 
 
 Concurrent Legislation, defined and argued, 
 116; eflfect on monopolies, 119. 
 
 Confederation, its efTect on commerce, 114; 
 of 1781 a league, 276 ; state of the country 
 under the, 281. 
 
 Confessions, how to be regarded, 220. 
 
 Congress of Delegates, at Philadelphia, 
 1774, 162 ; resolutions on the Declaration, 
 165 ; sat with closed doors, 166. 
 
 Congress of Greece, of 1821, 72. 
 
 Congress of United States, power to regu- 
 late commerce, 114, 120; should have 
 power to regulate commerce, 115; and 
 the States, argument on concurrent power 
 of, 115; exclusive right over monopolies, 
 116 ; possesses exclusive admiralty juris- 
 diction, 118; law of, paramount, 120; 
 laws of, in opposition to State law, 122 ; 
 power concerning rights of authors and 
 inventors. 122; its coinage powers, 185; 
 to establisli uniform bankrupt laws, 186 ; 
 power over slave trade, 233 ; no power 
 over slavery, 233, 429, 636 ; power to 
 make laws, 293, 331 ; exclusive power to 
 lay duties, 300 ; duty of, in case of a Presi- 
 dential veto, 320; passes first bank 
 charter, 1791,327; to establish banks, 328, 
 334, 335; power of, continuous, 336; 
 duties of both houses, 375; power to bor- 
 row money, 375 ; in regard to publii? 
 monejs, 3S2 ; no precise time for ex- 
 piration of session, 414; power over 
 ceded territory, 445; no control over 
 slavery, 571. 
 
 Congress of Verona, in regard to Greek 
 revolution, 70, 153. 
 
 Connecticut, law of, concerning steam nav- 
 igation, 112. 
 
 Constitution of United States, provision con- 
 cerning er;>os<y«c/o laws, 19; its origin to 
 
INDEX. 
 
 093 
 
 regulate commerce, 114, 115; its authority 
 to L'Stablisli bankrupt laws, 17'J ; law of, in 
 re;:aril to contracts, 180 ; object of tlie, 
 160 ; provides a inediiiin for payment of 
 debts, anil a uniform mode of discliargmg 
 them, 186 ; prohibitions of, concerning 
 Contracts and payment of debts, 187 ; 
 provisions for settling questions of Con- 
 stitutional law, 265; to be interpreted by 
 the judicial power, 265, 28-; as a com- 
 pact, -7(1 ; not a compact between Sover- 
 eign States, argued, 2T6; object of, 281 ; 
 not a league, 282 ; what it says of itself, 
 283 ; its relations to individuals, 286 ; 
 Madison's opinion of, 313 ; provision of, 
 in case of a Presidential veto, 320; 
 President Jackson's view of, 35-4; our 
 duty to tlie, 358 ; protects labor, 361 ; 
 division of powers conferred by, 379; on 
 power of removal from office, 398 ; divides 
 powers of government, 8U8 ; recognized 
 slavery, 42'J, 570 ; does not speak of 
 Sovereign States, or Federal Govern- 
 ment, 538 ; protects existing government 
 of a State, 542; and the Union, sj)eech 
 on, Alarch 7, 1850, 600 ; formation of the, 
 628 ; provision of, concerning fugitives, 
 629 ; officers of the law bound to support 
 tlie, 630; how it affected the institution 
 of slavery, Ix. 
 
 Constructive presence defined, 210. 
 
 Contracts, cases cited concerning obliga- 
 tion of, 19; defined, include grants, 19; 
 provision concerning obligation of, 19; 
 law of tlie Constitution in regard to, 180; 
 obligation of, defined, 180, 181 ; obliga- 
 tion of, rests on universal law, 181; the 
 law not a part of, argued, 182-184; the 
 constitutional provision in regard to, 185 ; 
 prohibition on state law concerning, 187. 
 
 Convention of 1787, remarks on, 287. 
 
 Copper, duties received from, 108. 
 
 Corporate Franchises, power of Legislature 
 over, limited, 6. 
 
 Corporations, acts of Legislature, on Dart- 
 mouth College (1769), 2, 3; royal preroga- 
 tive to create, 5 ; power of King over, 
 limited by Legislature, 5 ; power of Legis- 
 lature to create, 5 ; opinion of Lord Mans- 
 field on rights of, 5 ; divers sorts of, 6 ; 
 eleemosynary, nature of, defined, 6, 9 ; 
 power of, over property possessed by 
 them, H ; charter rights of visitors of, 7 ; 
 power of visitation over transferable,?; 
 argument of Stillingfleet, 8 ; rights of 
 trustees object of legal protection, 11 ; 
 fr: nchises granted to, 11 ; concerning 
 pecuniary benefit from, 11 ; concerning 
 orivate property, 12 ; concerning grants 
 
 of land to, 13 ; right of trustees to elect 
 officers, 16 ; legislature, cannot repeal 
 statutes creating private, 20; extract Irom 
 Justice Bulleron government of, 21 ; how 
 charters of, may be altered or varied, 21 ; 
 possible dangers of independent govern- 
 ment, 22. 
 
 Cotton, altemj)t to naturalize growth of, iti 
 France, 99 ; how affected by tariti' of 
 1824, 102; proposed reduction of duty 
 on, 243; culture of, protectc-d, 3i»4 ; how 
 its cultivation affects slavery and the 
 South, 608. 
 
 Cotton Manufactures, importance of, 101 ; 
 of England and United States, 103. 
 
 Crawford, Mr., opi)osing candidate to Mr. 
 Adams, 581. 
 
 Credit System, and the Labor of the United 
 States, remarks on, 449. 
 
 Credit System, benefit of, in United States, 
 364 ; evils arising from abuse of, 364. 
 
 Criminal Law, its object, 198. 
 
 Cumberland Road Bill, approved, 415. 
 
 Currency, effect of paper issues to depre- 
 ciate, 81 ; paper, of England, effijct on 
 prices, 81 ; the laboring man's interest 
 in, 360 ; experiment of exclusive specie, 
 362; President's interference with, 433 ; 
 soundness of, 440 ; derangement of, effect 
 of, 442 ; its restoration an object of revolu- 
 tion of 1840, 4U0. 
 
 Cusliing, Thomas, delegate to Congress, 
 162. 
 
 Custom-house Bonds, act of 1800 in regard 
 to, 383. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dallas, Geo. M., proposition of, for a bank, 
 460. 
 
 Dane, Nathan, drafted Ordinance of 1787, 
 231. 
 
 Danemora, iron mines of, 105. 
 
 Dartmouth College, argument in case of, 
 1 ; acts of Legislature affecting, 1, 3, 14, 
 15, 16, 18; corporation of, (1769,) 2; 
 charter of, (1769,) is a contract, 22; ob- 
 servation of Mr. Webster on opinion of 
 court of N. H. concerning, 22 ; incident 
 connected with Mr. Webster's argument 
 in case of, xxi. 
 
 Davis, Judge, 532. 
 
 Debt, abolition of imprisonment for, 474 
 
 Debtor and Creditor, law of, 472, 473. 
 
 Debts, the Constitution provides tor the 
 payment and discharge of, 186. 
 
 Declaration of Independence, 163 ; com- 
 mittee app>uited to draft the, 164; ita 
 
GB-i 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 objoct and foundation, 165 ; speeches of 
 Webster for, and dissenting, ascribed to 
 Adams and another, 167, 168 ; anniver- 
 sary of, 641. 
 
 Democracy, Northern, policy of, 611. 
 
 Deposits, removal of, by tlie President, 369. 
 Ute i'ubhc Moneys. 
 
 Dexter, Samuel, character of, 261. 
 
 Disbursing Officers, tenure of oflSce, 396. 
 
 Discourse delivered at Plymoutli, on " First 
 Settlement of New England," 25. 
 
 Dissolution of the Union, evils of, 346. 
 
 District of Columbia, remarks of Mr. Web- 
 ster on Slavery in, 445; resolutions on 
 Slavery in, 445; power of Congress in, 
 446. 
 
 Divine Right, a doctrine of the Holy Alli- 
 ance, 63. 
 
 Di.\, J. A., his vote for admission of Te.xas, 
 611. 
 
 Domestic Industry, not confined to manu- 
 factures, 98. 
 
 Dorr, Thomas W., at the head of revolu- 
 tionary government of Rhode Island, 
 c35; tried for treason, 536. 
 
 Dough Faces, voted for Missouri Compro- 
 mise, 583. 
 
 Douglass, Stephen H., amendment concern- 
 ing Missouri, 569. 
 
 Druiu-Beat of England, 371. 
 
 Duane, W. J., removal of, from office, 368. 
 
 Duclie', Rev. Mr., opened first Congress 
 with prayer, 522. 
 
 Durfoe, Chief Justice, charge of, in Dorr 
 case of Riiode Island, 545. 
 
 Duties on Imports, extract from speech on, 
 (1846,) 110. 
 
 E. 
 
 Edjcation, provision for general diffusion 
 of, in New England, 47, 48 ; sentiment of 
 John Adams on, 174. 
 
 Edwards, Jonathan, his use of the word 
 " sweetness," x.x.xix. 
 
 Election, of oflBcers of colleges, 16. 
 
 Elections, rights, of, 12; American system 
 of, 540. 
 
 Electricity, progress in, 648. 
 
 Eleemosynary corporations, nature of, de- 
 fined, 6, 9; colleges are included under, 
 22. 
 
 EUenborough, Lord, on commercial re- 
 strictions, 87. 
 
 Ellsworth, Oliver, extract from, on the Con- 
 stitution, 288, 295. 
 
 Eloquence, dcfiiiod by Webster, 167. 
 
 Emiiurgo, .Mr. IliilliDii.se's opinion of, 260; 
 opposed by Maasachusetts, 260. 
 
 Emigration, diflFerent motives for, 31, 557 ; 
 Grecian, 32; Roman, 33; purposes and 
 prospects of Pilgrim Fathers, 35; toward 
 the West, 41 ; to Calit'ornia, began, 601 ; 
 how encouraged by England, 656. 
 
 England, effect of taxation on land-holders 
 in, 44 ; how land was holden, in time of 
 Henry the Seventh, 44; paper system of, 
 effect on prices, bl ; protective system of, 
 84 ; policy of, in respect to paper currency, 
 86; manufacture of silk in, 87 ; removed 
 certain restrictions on trade, 89 ; pro- 
 visions concerning her shipping interest, 
 109 ; course of, in regard to Spanish 
 colonies, 154 ; the original ground of dis 
 pute between the Colonies and, 164 ; rela- 
 tion of South Carolina to, in 1775.259; 
 maritime power of, in war of 1812, 461 ; 
 imprisonment for debt abolished in, 474 ; 
 progress of its power, 501 ; law of, in 
 regard to charitable institutions, 527 ; 
 representative system of, 538, 642 ; right 
 claimed by, in respect to impressment, 
 655; encourages emigration, 656. 
 
 English Colonists, in America, secret of 
 their success, 147. 
 
 English Composition, school-boy's attempt 
 at, xi ; falseness of style, xii. 
 
 English Language, correct use in the United 
 States, 148. 
 
 English Revolution of 1688, 63; participa 
 tion of Massachusetts in, 39. 
 
 Europe, effect in United States of pacifi- 
 cation of, 242 ; condition of, at the birth 
 of Washington, 341. 
 
 Everett, Edward, Minister to England, 487 ; 
 draft for the Iliilseniann letter, 678. 
 
 Ewing, Thomas, resolution in regard to 
 payments for public lands, 438; plan for 
 a national bank, 490. 
 
 Exchange, the rate of, 96; English stand- 
 ard of, 97. 
 
 Exchequer, plan of, Mr. Webster's appro- 
 bation of, 491,492; sent to Congress t 
 1842. 401. 
 
 Exclusion of Slavery from the Territorie* 
 speech on, Aug. 12, 1848, 569. 
 
 Executive of United States, power over th* 
 press, 351, 3.32; refuses to execute law 
 of Congress, 353 ; patronage, dangers of, 
 394, 395 ; power of, defined, 398 ; exten- 
 sion of its power, 430, 431 ; change in the 
 fiscal system effected by, 436. 
 
 Executive Patronage, and removals from 
 office, speech on, 347. 
 
 Executive Usurpation, speech on, 35.3. 
 
 Exeter College, judgment of Lord Holt, in 
 case of, 7 ; argument of Stillingfleet, 8. 
 
 Exports from the United States, 79, 93. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 695 
 
 Ex post facto laws, prohibited by Consti- 
 tution of U. S., 19. 
 
 Eyre, Lord Commissioner, opinion of, on 
 cliartered charities, 9. 
 
 F. 
 
 Faneuil Hall, draped in mourning for the 
 first time, 156; reception of Mr. Webster 
 at, Hept. 30, 1842, 481. 
 
 Federalism, history of, 252. 
 
 Federalist, extract from, on the Constitution, 
 289. 
 
 Festival of Sons of New Hampshire, 598. 
 
 Fillmore, Millard, laid corner-stone of ex- 
 tension to the Capitol, 644; addressed, 
 653. 
 
 Fitch, John, grant to, concerning steam 
 navigation, 112. 
 
 Fitzsimmons, Mr., suggests protective du- 
 ties, 303. 
 
 Flagg, George, his painting of the Landing 
 of the Pilgrims, 52. 
 
 Fletcher v. Peck, case of contract, 10. 
 
 Florida, acquisition of, 429 ; admitted into 
 the Union, 559 ; cession of, 608. 
 
 Foot's Resolution, in Congress, concerning 
 Public Lands, 227 ; Mr. Webster's second 
 speech on, 227 ; Mr. Webster's last re- 
 marks on, 269. 
 
 Foreigners, as stockholders in U. S. Bank, 
 325-327. 
 
 Foreign Interference, President Monroe on, 
 153. 
 
 Foreign Trade, to be encouraged, 94, 98. 
 
 Forsyth, John, moves to reduce duty on 
 cotton, 243. 
 
 Fortification Bill, speech on loss of the, 
 407; history of, 410-413; extract from 
 President's Message on, 416. 
 
 Foster, Jolin, extract from his " Essay on 
 Evils of Popular Ignorance," 523. 
 
 Fox, Charles, remark on Lord Chancellor 
 Thurlow, xxxvii ; and Burke, speeches 
 of, compared, Ivi. 
 
 France, subdivision of landed property in, 
 44; prophecy concerning government of, 
 44, 53 ; allies enter into, effect on trade, 
 80; invasion of Spain, 153; alliance of 
 U. S. with, declared void, 278 ; letters of 
 marque, asked by President Jackson, 
 420. 
 
 Franchise, and liberty, synonymous terms, 
 11 ; individual, protected by law, 15. 
 
 Franchises, corporate, power of Legislature 
 over, limited, 6 ; granted to trustees of 
 corporations, 11. 
 
 Francis the First, quoted, 081. 
 
 Franklin, Benjamin, 39 ; appointed to draft 
 the Declaration, 164. 
 
 Franklin, State of, constitution of, and pro- 
 vision to supply a currency, 470. 
 
 Free Blacks, from North, how treated at 
 the South, 020. 
 
 Free Press, attributes of, 350 ; the bestow 
 ing of ofiice on conductors of the, 351. 
 
 Free Schools, of New England, 47. 
 
 Free Soil men, character of, 631. 
 
 Free Soil Party, platform of, 580; nominate 
 Martin "Van Buren, 581. 
 
 Free Trade, speech of Mr. Webster on, 109, 
 note. 
 
 Freights, rates of, 83, 108 ; of iros from 
 Sweden, 106. 
 
 French Indemnity Loan, of 1818, 81. 
 
 Frothingham, Richard, extract from, on lay- 
 ing corner-stone of Bunker Hill Monu- 
 ment, 123; account of completion of 
 Bunker Hill Monument, 135. 
 
 Fugitive Slave Law, of 1793, and 1850, 634 ; 
 opposition to, 635. 
 
 Fugitive Slaves, complaint of the South and 
 duty of the North concerning, 617 ; pro- 
 vision of the Constitution in respect to, 
 629. 
 
 Fulton, Robert, his exclusive right to navi- 
 gation, 112. 
 
 Fulton and Livingston, grant of steam navi- 
 gation to, by New York, 112. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gage, Governor, convenes General Court 
 
 at Salem, 162; rejects John Adams as 
 
 Councillor, 162. 
 Gainos, Major, description of New Mexico, 
 
 561 
 Gallagher, Wm. D., extract from, on 
 
 growth of Western trade, 646. 
 General Court, convened at Salem, 162 ; al 
 
 Salem dissolved, and power of England 
 
 terminated, 162. 
 Georgia, cession of her Western territory, 
 
 608. 
 German Literature, play ridiculing the, 454. 
 Gerry, Samuel, 170. 
 Gibbons v. Ogden, case of, 111; argument 
 
 of Mr. Webster in, 111. 
 Girard College, provisions of Girard's will 
 
 in regard to, 506 ; restriction concerning 
 
 religious instruction in, 507 ; no observ 
 
 ance of the Sabb;ith there, 518. 
 Girard, Stephen, will of, contested, 505, 
 
 his scheme derogatory to Christianity 
 
 515, 516. 
 Glass, duty on, advisable, 102. 
 
696 
 
 DsDEX. 
 
 Gold, and silver as legal tender, 95 ; dis- 
 covered in California, 601. 
 
 Goodhue, Mr., 497. 
 
 Goodridge Kobbery Case, Mr. Webster's 
 management of, xv. 
 
 Government, nature and constitution of, 
 43; republican form of, laws w^hich regu- 
 late, 43 ; of France, how effected by sub- 
 division of land, 44, 53 ; subdivision of 
 lands necessary to free form of, 44 ; the 
 true principle of a free, 45 ; to be founded 
 on property, 45; absolute or regulated, 
 tlie question of the age, GO ; influence of 
 knowledge over, 131-13.3; difficulty of 
 establishing popular, 132; influence of 
 public opinion on, l."!3 ; jjopuhir, practi- 
 cable, 134 ; popular, overtlirown in Spain, 
 153 ; powers of, concerning local im- 
 provement, 238 ; power of, over internal 
 improvements, 243; doctrine of South 
 Carolina on State rights, 255 ; popular, 
 rests on two ■principles, 297 ; the success 
 of a united, 499. 
 
 Government, American, character of, estab- 
 lished by the Pilgrims, 35; origin and 
 character of, 43 ; system of representa- 
 tion in, 46 ; founded on morality and 
 religious sentiment, 49; origin and source 
 of power, 257 ; its establishment, 285 ; 
 majority must govern, 295; danger of 
 political proscription to tlie, 349 ; two 
 principles upon which it stands, 319. 
 
 Grants, legislature no power to rescind, 
 when given for educational or religious 
 purposes, 13; protection of, 19; included 
 under contracts, 19. 
 
 Groat Britain, negotiation of treaty with. 
 481. 
 
 Greece, saved by battle of Marathon, 28 ; 
 emigration from, 32 ; speecii on revolu- 
 tion in, 57 ; appeal to United States con- 
 cerning revolution in, 57 ; extract from 
 President Monroe, on revolution in, 58 ; 
 we are her debtors, 58 ; improved condi- 
 tion of, 68 ; conduct of Allied Sovereigns 
 in regard to contest in, 69 ; Congress at 
 Verona, 1822, concerning independence 
 of, 7l»; Congress of 1821,72; revolution 
 of 1821 in, 72; society of Vienna to en- 
 courage literature in, 72 ; propriety of ap- 
 pomting an agent to, 75; liberty of, 041 ; 
 want of union among her states, 642. 
 
 Greeks, Baron StrogonofT on the massacre 
 of liie, 71; excited to rebellion by Rus- 
 sia, 09 ; our sympathy for cause of , 67 ; 
 the oppression of, by Turkey, 68 ; what 
 they iiave accomplished, 74. 
 
 Griswold, George, toast to Daniel Web- 
 ster 496. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hale, Representative to Congress, i85. 
 Hamilton, Alexander, his services, 309. 
 Hancock, John, presides in Congress, 167, 
 
 signed tlie Declaration, 170; first signer 
 
 of the Declaration, 497. 
 Harbor Bill, course of President Jackson 
 
 concerning, 353. 
 Hardin, Col., description of New Mexico, 
 
 567. 
 Harrison, Wm. Henry, President, 481 ; the 
 
 "Log Cabin " candidate, 476; civil char- 
 
 acter of, 577. 
 Hartford Convention, 235; design of, 253. 
 Harvard College, 40, 48. 
 Harvey, Peter, story told of Mr. Webster 
 
 by, XV. 
 Hayne, Robert Y., speaks on Foot's resolu- 
 tion, 227 ; reply of Webster to, on Foot's 
 
 resolution, 227; votes on internal im- 
 provement, 245. 
 Hemp, growth of, to be encouraged, 107 ; 
 
 importation of, 107 ; effect of increased 
 
 duty on, 108. 
 Henry, Patrick, 172. 
 Henry the Seventh, division of land in Eng 
 
 land in time of, 44 ; colonies planted in 
 
 the reign of, 142. 
 Hermitage, supposed visit of occupant of, 
 
 to the Senate Chamber, 446. 
 Hillard, ilr., remarks in Massachusetts 
 
 Senate, 618. 
 Hillhouse, Mr., opinion on the embargo 
 
 law, 260. 
 Hoar, Mr., mission of, to South Carolina, 
 
 621. 
 Holland, trade of, with the United States, 
 
 93 ; our treaty with, of 1782, 170. 
 Holt, Lord, opinion of, respecting power of 
 
 visitors over corporations, 7. 
 Holy Alliance, origin of, 61 ; effect on social 
 
 rights, 62, 64 ; extract from Puffendorf, 
 
 bearing on principles of, 62; principles 
 
 of tiie, 62, 63; forcible interference a 
 
 principle of, 63. 
 Home Market, effect of manufactures on, 
 
 84. 
 House of Commons, representation in the, 
 
 042. 
 Hiilsemann Letter, written liv Mr. Webster, 
 
 679. 
 Hume, Mr., remark on administration of 
 
 justice, 316. 
 Hungarians, arrival of, in the United States, 
 
 082. 
 Hungary, President Taylor's interest in the 
 
 revolution in, 679; correspondence relat 
 
 ing to revolution in. 682. 
 
IKDEX. 
 
 697 
 
 Hunter, Mr., 678. 
 
 Huskisson, Mr., 4'.)1 ; policy of, in respect 
 
 to commerce, 93. 
 Hutchinson. Gov., 165. 
 
 Immortality, Inquiries concerninp, 517. 
 
 Impeachment, closing appeal in defence of 
 Judge James Prescott, 55. 
 
 Imports, excess of, over exports, explained, 
 93. 
 
 Impressment, convention of 1803, in respect 
 to, 055 ; English law in respect to, 655; 
 letter of Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton 
 respecting, 655; injuries of, 658; letter 
 of Lord xVsiiburton on, 659; rule of the 
 United States in respect to, G58. 
 
 Imprisonment for Debt, abolition of, 474. 
 
 Inauguration of Washington, 312. 
 
 India and Ciiina, trade of United States 
 witli, 96. 
 
 Individual Rights, concerning charities, 12. 
 
 Insolvent Debtors, act of New York con- 
 cerning, 179. 
 
 Insolvents, hopeless condition of, 472. 
 
 Intellectual being, inquiries of an, 517. 
 
 Interference, forcible, a principle of the 
 Holy Alliance, 63 ; a violation of public 
 law, 65. 
 
 Internal Improvements, in New England, 43 ; 
 progress of, 80 ; general benefit from, 238 ; 
 course of South Carolina towards, 238; 
 at the West, opposition of the South to, 
 240 ; attention of United States directed 
 to, 242 ; course pursued by Mr. Webster 
 in Congress towards, 243 ; votes of Hayne 
 on, 245 ; Mr. Calhoun's bill for, 466. 
 
 International Law, duty of United States 
 in regard to, 60, 61, 66. 
 
 Ireland, coasting trade of England with, 
 100; legislation desired in, 499. 
 
 Iron, concerning home manufacture of, 104- 
 106; how affected by tariff of 1824, 104; 
 effect of increased duty on, 108. 
 
 Jackson, Andrew, veto on United States 
 Bank Bill, 320 ; opinion of Mr. Webster 
 on the veto of the Bank bill, 337, 338; 
 message in regard to the Bank of United 
 States, 343 ; uses his power to remove 
 from office, 347 ; sentiments of Webster 
 on re-election of, 357 ; protest of, 367 ; 
 removal of deposits by, 360 ; recommends 
 letters of marque and reprisal against 
 France, 420 ; remarks of Mr. Webster on, 
 
 423; his course concerning the currency, 
 434; inauguration as President, 434 ; act 
 of making sales of public lands rwiyable 
 in gold and silver, 438 ; character r)f, 439 ; 
 elected President vice Mr. Adams m 1828, 
 581 ; idea of bridging the Potomac, 052. 
 
 James the First, his tyranny, 377. 
 
 James the Second, attack on college livings 
 at IMagdalen College, 17. 
 
 Jay, John, his services, 311; appointed 
 Chief Justice, 311; quoted, 538; treaty 
 of 1794 with England, 608. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, news of the death of, 156 ; 
 birth and education of, 163 ; elected to first 
 Congress, 163, 172 ; his paper on " Rights 
 of'America," 163 ; appointed to draft the 
 Declaration, 164 ; remark on Adams in 
 Congress, 166 ; Governor of Virginia, 172; 
 his "Notes on Virginia," 172 ; Minister 
 abroad, 172; Secretary of Slate, 172; 
 Vice-President and President, 172, 173; 
 his " Manual of Parliamentary Practice," 
 172 ; founded University of Virginia, 
 173; his scholarship, 173; last days of, 
 173; inscription for his monument, 173; 
 Louisiana acquired in administration of, 
 175 ; correspondence concerning the 
 Confederation, 287 ; use of his power to 
 remove from office, 348 ; opfiosed to ex- 
 pending money without appropriation, 
 418; admitted Louisiana into the Union, 
 559 ; opinion of admitting Louisiana into 
 the Union, 630 ; rule in respect to im- 
 pressment, 658. 
 
 Jewish Talmuds, 524. 
 
 Johnson, Hon. Richard M., effort for aboli- 
 tion of imprisonment for debt, 474. 
 
 Johnston, Samuel, extract on the Constitu- 
 tion, 288. 
 
 Jones, Sir William, extract from, 643. 
 
 Joseph the Second, quoted, 681. 
 
 Judiciary of United States, to interpret 
 questions of constitutional law, 265, 282 ; 
 extent of its power, 265, 293 ; Mr. Madi- 
 son's opinion on, 294 ; Mr. Pinkney on 
 the, 294; its duties and extent, 316; 
 how vacancies are filled, 318; decideo 
 the constitutional laws, 330. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kemble, Mr., anecdote of, xxiii. 
 
 Kennistons, Defence of the, xv. 
 
 Kent, Chancellor, remarks at Webster din- 
 ner in New York, 307. 
 
 King, Gov., action of, in revolution in 
 Rhode Island, 536. 
 
 King, Mr., of Alabama, 413. 
 
698 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 King, Ruf us, resolution of, in 1785, in re- 
 gard to slavery, 235 ; member of Con- 
 gress, and of the Convention of 1787, 606 ; 
 on impressment, 657. 
 
 King Solomon's Lodge, erect a monument 
 to General Warren, 123. 
 
 Knapp, J. F. and J. J., Jr., convicted of 
 murder of Captain Joseph White, 15)3. 
 
 Knowledge, its influence over governments, 
 131-133; diffusion of, in United States, 
 850. 
 
 Knowlton, anecdote of, xxvi. 
 
 Kossuth, Louis, demanded of Turkey by 
 Emperor of Russia, 5'J8 ; extract from 
 speech of Mr. Webster on, 51*8; his com- 
 munication to American Charge' d'Af- 
 faires, 6b2. 
 
 L. 
 
 Labor, how to be protected, 82 ; different 
 prices of, 105; protected by the Consti- 
 tution, 361. 
 
 Laborers, their interest in the currency, 
 360 ; character of Northern, 620 ; of the 
 North, compared with Southern slaves, 
 620. 
 
 Labor-Saving Machines, 451. 
 
 Lafayette, Gen., addressed by Webster at 
 Bunker Hill, 130. 
 
 Land, a subdivision of, necessary to free 
 form of government, 44; effect of ta.\a- 
 tion on division of, in England, 44; how 
 holden in England in time of Henry the 
 Seventh, 44; prophecy concerning sub- 
 division of, on government of France, 44, 
 63. 
 
 Landing of Pilgrims at Plymouth, picture 
 representing. 52. 
 
 Lands, Public, Mr. P'oot's resolution in re- 
 gard to, 227 ; views of Mr. Webster con- 
 cerning the disposition of, 237, 238; 
 powers of government to donate for local 
 improvement, 238; donations of, neces- 
 sary for local improvement, 230; liberal 
 redaction in price of, favored by New Eng- 
 land, 241 ; whence obtained, 426 ; States 
 have no sovereignty over, 426 ; question 
 of revenue connected with, 427; liberal 
 policy in respect to sales of, 427 ; revenue 
 arising from sales of, 428 ; act making 
 sales of, payable in gold and silver, 
 488. 
 
 Lansdowne, Lord, quoted on prohibitory 
 duties, 80, 04. 
 
 Law, of the land, relating to individual fran- 
 chise, 16 ; interest and duty of United 
 States in international, 66 ; criminal, its 
 
 object, 198 ; Mr. Webster's respect for. 
 319 ; representation the foundation of, 
 643 ; the supreme rule, 648. 
 
 Laws, validity of, not to depend upon the 
 motive, 301. 
 
 Laybach, circular of sovereigns at, 62. 
 
 Lay preaching and lay teaching, 513. 
 
 League, defined, 278. 
 
 Lee, Richard Henry, resolution of June, 
 1776, 163. 
 
 Legislation, society to be regarded in, 108 ; 
 concurrent power of States with Congress, 
 116-118; will of the people ascertained by, 
 641. 
 
 Legislative Power, over cliarters, defined, 
 6; restriction imposed upon, 23. 
 
 Legislature, Acts of. See Acts of Legisla- 
 ture. 
 
 Legislature, power of King over corpora- 
 tions, limited by, 5; power of, to create 
 corporations, 5 ; power of, over charters, 
 limited, 6 ; cannot resume grants of land 
 given for educational or religious pur- 
 poses, 18 ; power of, to affect individual 
 rights, 15 ; cannot repeal statutes creating 
 private corporations, 20; power of, re- 
 strained by Ordinance of 1787, 234. 
 
 Legislatures, to support the Constitution 
 of United States, 286. 
 
 Leigh, Mr., 412. 
 
 Letters of Marque, against France, asked 
 by President Jackson, 420. 
 
 Liberties, defined, 11. 
 
 Liberty, love of religious, 29 ; character- 
 istics of, 122 ; the contests for, 385 ; prin- 
 ciples of American, 536 ; of Greece, Rome, 
 and America, 641, 642. 
 
 Lincolnshire, Pilgrims in, 30. 
 
 Literature, its advantages in public life, 
 174 ; progress in, 64y. 
 
 Liverpool Blue Coat School, 528. 
 
 Liverpool, Lord, 491 ; on freedom of trade, 
 86. 
 
 Livingston and Fulton, right of steam navi- 
 gation granted by New York, 112. 
 
 Livingston, Chancellor, his services, 811. 
 
 Livingston, Robert R., 126. 
 
 Local institutions for local purposes, and 
 general institutions for general purposes, 
 498. 
 
 Local legislation, benefits of, 498, 499. 
 
 Log Cabin Candidate, remarks on, 476. 
 
 Log Cabin, origin of the term, 476. 
 
 Louisiana, acquisition of, 175; how ob- 
 tained, 429; slave-holding States framed 
 from, 60j< ; admission of, into the Union, 
 630 ; Mr. Jefferson's opinion of admitting 
 to the Union, 630. 
 
 Luther, Reformation of. 143. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 699 
 
 M. 
 
 Macaulay, extract from, on English lawyers 
 and English statesmen, xli. 
 
 McCleary, fell at Charlcstown, 130. 
 
 McDowell, Governor of Virginia, 010. 
 
 MacDutHe, speech on Internal Improve- 
 ments refi'ned to, 244. 
 
 Machinory, law prohibiting exportation of, 
 from Entilaiiil, 01. 
 
 MaehinL's, not labor-saving, but labor-doing, 
 451. 
 
 McLane, Louis, instructions to, concerning 
 colonial trade, 581. 
 
 McLcod, Alexander, case of, 482. 
 
 Madison, James, knowledge of the Consti- 
 tution, 247, 256, 313 ; on the Judiciary, 
 204; extracts from, on duties on imports, 
 303 ; his public services, 310, 312 ; opinion 
 on nullification, 313 ; Secretary of State 
 and President, 313 ; approved United 
 States Bank, 331 ; opinion in regard to 
 removal from office, 347 ; on impeach- 
 ment, 431 ; Secretary of State, 559 ; ar- 
 ticle of, admitting Louisiana into Union, 
 559; opinion of, on slavery, 606. 
 
 Majority Government, 205. 
 
 Mann, A. D., instructions to, 683. 
 
 Mansfield, Lord, opinion of, on chartered 
 rights, 5 ; foundation of colleges consid- 
 ered by, 0. 
 
 Manufactures, acts of 1816 and 1824 respect- 
 ing, 99. 
 
 Iklarathon, battle of, how affected Greece, 
 28. 
 
 Marslifield, speech at, Sept. 1, 1848, 575. 
 
 Martial Law, defined, 549. 
 
 Martin, Mr., opinions on the Judiciary, 294; 
 objections to the Constitution, 303. 
 
 Maryland, settlement of, 125. 
 
 Mason, J. W., on slave labor, 573; bill con- 
 cerning fugitive slaves, 617. 
 
 Mason, Jeremiah, death of, 580; obituary 
 remarks of Mr. Webster, 580 ; resolutions 
 on death of, 589 ; his ancestry, 590 ; ap- 
 pointed Attorney-General, 592 ; Senator 
 of United States, 593 ; his style as an 
 orator, xix ; his respect for Daniel Web- 
 ster, XX. 
 
 Massachusetts, participation in English 
 Revolution, 39 ; commercial progress of, 
 40; voted against tariff of 1824, 110; 
 Constitution of, when framed and revised, 
 170, 171; eulogium on (Webster), 254; 
 opposes tlie embargo law, 2*j0 ; duty to 
 the Constitution, 358 ; her general pros- 
 perity, 451 ; her action on abdication of 
 Jatnes II., 537. 
 Mathers, father and son, 89 
 
 Mayflower, compact signed in lier cabin, 
 35; object of her voyage, 143. 
 
 Melville, Major, removed from custom- 
 house, 348. 
 
 Members of Congress, appointment of, to 
 office, 350. 
 
 Mercliant Vessels, national territory, 656. 
 
 Message, of President Monroe on foreign in- 
 terference, approved by Lord Brougham, 
 155 ; how received by tlie people, 155 • 
 of Gen. Jackson, 1820, views in respe.ct 
 to Bank of the United States, 434. 
 
 Methodist Church t-\ Remington, case of, 530. 
 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, separation of, 
 in regard to slavery, G04. 
 
 Mexican treaty, clauses ceding New Mex- 
 ico and California, 587 ; Mr. Webster's 
 vote in respect to, 587. 
 
 Mexican War, speech on, 651; objects of 
 the, 552, 553. 556. 
 
 Mexico, the Sixteen MiUion Loan Bill for 
 prosecuting war with, 551 ; treaty of 1848 
 between United States and, 551 ; objects 
 of the war with, the cession of territory, 
 552, 553, 556 ; forced to cede territory to 
 United States, 652, 601 ; aversion of, to 
 cede territory, 557 ; war declared against, 
 601 ; the treaty with, 632. 
 
 Military Academy at West Point, the ap- 
 propriation for, 408. 
 
 Military Achievements, important by their 
 results, 28. 
 
 Milton, John, use of words, xiiL 
 
 Missionaries in Georgia, 353. 
 
 Mississippi River, future centre of the 
 country, 622. 
 
 Missouri Compromise, line of, 570. 
 
 Missouri, law for the admission of, 669. 
 
 Monmouth, associations of, 339. 
 
 Monopolies, report on impracticability of, 
 89; power of Congress over, 116; effect 
 of State power over, 119. 
 
 Monroe, James, extract from message on the 
 struggle in Greece, 58 ; extract from mes 
 sage concerning foreign interference, 153. 
 
 Morris, Robert, notice of, 497. 
 
 Morton, Perez, delivered eulogy on Gen. 
 Warren, 123. 
 
 Murder, of Capt. Joseph White, at Salem, 
 189 ; portrayed, 105 ; what constitutes a 
 principal in, 207 ; what constitutes an 
 abettor to, 208 ; two sorts of, 208. 
 
 Murphy, Mr., in regard to Texas, 612 
 
 Napoleon, attempt in respect to cotton, 9« 
 Nashville Convention, 622. 
 
700 
 
 IXDE. 
 
 National Law, concerning offences against 
 the, 598; Emperor of Russia bound by, 
 698. 
 
 Natural Hatred of Poor for the Rich, re- 
 marks of AVebster on, 359. 
 
 Navigation, English act of 1660, restricting 
 tiie trade of the N. E. Colonies, 37 ; con- 
 dition «f that of United States (1824), 83 ; 
 of Hudson River and Long Island Sound, 
 exclusive claim of Fulton to, 112. 
 
 Navy, creation of, 175 ; Mr. Webster's 
 early support to the, 461 ; of the United 
 States, its strength in 1850, 649. 
 
 Neutrality of United States, defined, 152. 
 
 New England, discourse on First Settlement 
 of, 25; first settlement of, 28; English Act 
 of Navigation, 1660, restricting trade of, 
 37 ; progress of the first century of, 38 ; 
 opening of second century of, 40 ; poi)u- 
 lation of, in 1820, 40; her part in wars be- 
 tween England and France, 42 ; war of 
 the Revolutioa begun in, 42 ; internal im- 
 provement in, 43 ; the subdivision of lands 
 in, necessary, 43, 44 ; right of primogeni- 
 ture aboiislied in, 44 ; free schools of, 47 ; 
 prosperity of, in 1824, 78; forced into 
 manufactures, 110; causes which led to 
 eettleiiient of, 141-144; its free schools, 
 174 ; attack of Hayne on, 236, 249 ; policy 
 of, concerning Western population, 238; 
 interest of, in public improvements, 239 ; 
 when, how, and why her measures favor 
 the West, 240 ; favors reduction of price 
 of public lands, 241 ; supiiorted adminis- 
 tration of Washington, 250; her course 
 concerning the embargo, 201 ; New Eng- 
 land Society of New York, object of its 
 formation, 500; settlement of, 501. 
 
 New Hampshire, acts of Legislature, relat- 
 ing to Dartmouth College, 1, 14, 15, 16, 
 18; legislative and judicial power, sepa- 
 rate, 15 ; extract from speech, at festival 
 of natives of, 598. 
 
 New Jersey, law of, concerning steam navi- 
 gation, 112 ; resolutions concerning com- 
 merce, 115. 
 
 New Mexico, proposed annexation of, 562; 
 pojjulation of, 563; country described by 
 Major Gaines, 565 ; nature of country in- 
 liabitants, 666; prognostications of Mr. 
 Webster in regard to admission of, 568; 
 article of cession to United States, 687 ; 
 existence of peonisni in, 615 ; slavery ex- 
 cluded from, by law of nature, 615. 
 
 Newton, Isaac, 158. 
 
 New York, grant of steam navigation to 
 John Fitch, 112 ; grant of steam naviga- 
 tion to Livingston and Fulton, 112; laws 
 of, concerning steam navigation, 112. 113; 
 
 act of, concerning insolvent debtors, 179; 
 insolvent law of, 183 ; public dinner givea 
 to Webster in, 307 ; growth of. contempo- 
 rary with the Constitution, 309 , her loy- 
 alty to the Union, 318; toast of Webster 
 to City of, 319 ; Reception of Webster at, 
 in 1837, 422; law of 1845 in respect to 
 elections, 542; her vote for annexing 
 Texas, 631. 
 
 Niles, J. M., his vote for admission of Texas, 
 611. 
 
 North, duty of, in respect to fugitive slaves, 
 617 ; complaints of, against the Soutli, 
 620. 
 
 North and South, grievances of, 617, 620. 
 
 Northern Democracy, policy of. Oil. 
 
 Northwestern Territory, concerning slavery 
 in, 234 ; slavery excluded from. 571. 
 
 Nullification, right of, denied, 257 ; right 
 of, never advanced in New England, 263 ; 
 practical operations of, in South Carolina, 
 266 ; practical operation of, 279, 282, 298 ; 
 threatened in South Carolina, o55 ; dan- 
 gerous tendency of, 355. 
 
 0. 
 
 Oath, legal definition of, 526. 
 
 Office. See Removal from OflBce. 
 
 Ogdcn, A., his right to navigation, 113. 
 
 Ogden V. Saunders, argument in case of, 
 179. 
 
 Ohio, settled mostly by Southern emigra- 
 tion, 574. 
 
 Old Colony Club, formation of, 25. 
 
 Old Thirteen, their public lands. 420. 
 
 Ordinance of 17S7. drafted by Nathan Dane, 
 231, 234 ; prohibits slavery, 231 ; re- 
 strained legislative power, 234. 
 
 Oregon, bill to organize a government for, 
 509; established a free Territory, 687; 
 government of, established, 616. 
 
 Ormicliund v. Barker, case of, 526. 
 
 Orphans, provision of Stephen Girard for 
 education of, 506. 
 
 Otis, James, his speech on Writs of Assist- 
 ance noticed, 161. 
 
 P. 
 
 Paine, Robert Treat, 170; delegate to Con- 
 gress, 162. 
 
 Paine, Thomas, extract from his " Ago of 
 Reason." 614. 
 
 Panama Mission, speech on, 152. 
 
 Paper Currency, of England, effect on prices, 
 81 ; the evils c f, 82 ; experiment c«<" a re- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 701 
 
 deenial)Ie, 3ftf^ ; advantagps of a, in the 
 United States, 303; prediction concern- 
 ing irredeemable, 365. 
 
 Parable of the prodigal son, 647 ; tlie wid- 
 ow's mite, referred to, 519. 
 
 Parker, Cliief Justice, 207 ; death of, 104. 
 
 Parliament, power of, over the Colonies, 
 1G5. 
 
 Parmenter, Mr., voted for tariff of 1842, 
 489. 
 
 Parthenon, referred to, 346. 
 
 Parties, origin of, 250; violence of, 251. 
 
 Party Spirit, Washington's exhortation 
 against, .345. 
 
 PatentOtfiL-e, established, 648. 
 
 Patterson, Mr., propositions of, in regard to 
 Confederation, 287. 
 
 Peace, the policy of the United States, 59. 
 
 Peaceable Secession, the impossibility of, 
 621. 
 
 Penn. William, 529. 
 
 Pennsylvania, memorial to abolish slavery, 
 232; opinion on tariff bill, 258, 2(52; how 
 affected by veto of U. S. Bank Bill, 328 ; 
 of Christian origin, 512 ; the public policy 
 of, 529 ; laws of, in regard to charitable 
 bequests, 530. 
 
 Peonism, existence of, in New Mexico, 615. 
 
 People, source of power, 257 ; will of, to be 
 ascertained by legislation, 541. 
 
 Perkins, Thomas H., eulogized, 138. 
 
 Peter the Great, policy of Russia developed 
 under, 69. 
 
 Philadelphia, convention of Whigs at, 575. 
 
 Phillips V. Bury, case of Exeter College, 7. 
 
 Pickering, Timotliy, amendment to Mr. 
 Calhoun's bill for internal improvements, 
 466. 
 
 Pilgrim Fathers, first celebration of anni- 
 versary of landing of, 25 ; our homage 
 for, 27 ; propliecy for the future of their 
 work. 29 ; motives which led them into 
 exile, 29; departure of, for Holland, 30; 
 establisli their government, 35 ; their pur- 
 poses and prospects in emigration, 85. 
 
 Pilgrim Festival at New York, speech of 
 Mr. Webster, 496. 
 
 Pilgrim Society, formation of, 25. 
 
 Pinkney, Thomas, opinion on the Judiciary, 
 294. 
 
 Plymouth, Landing of Pilgrims at, speech 
 in commemoration of, Dec. 22, 1820, 25 ; 
 speech of Dec. 22, 1843, 496. 
 
 Plynioutii Rock, landing on, described, 27. 
 
 Policy, of United States, peaceful, 59; neu- 
 tral, defined, 152. 
 
 Political Parties, existence of, 250. 
 
 Political Tower, the people the source of, 
 537. 
 
 Political Revolution, 132. 
 
 Polk, James K., will of, to take territorjr 
 from Mexico, 657 ; remarks of Mr. Web 
 ster on, 658; elected President in 1844, 
 683 ; avowal in respect to Mexican war, 
 602. 
 
 Poor, the, and the Rich, .359. 
 
 Pope, quotatiotv from, 683. 
 
 Popular Knowledge, progress of, and th« 
 causes, 450. 
 
 Posterity, our relation to, 26. 
 
 Potomac River, idea of President Jackson 
 to bridge the, 052. 
 
 Prescott, Judge James, closing appeal in 
 defence of, 55. 
 
 Prescott, William, at Bunker Hill, 1.38. 
 
 President of the United States, power of 
 removal from office, 329 ; no power to 
 decide constitutionality of laws, 330; 
 power to remove and to control an officer, 
 369; former practice of, to address Con- 
 gress in person, 374 ; power of appointing 
 public officers, 383 ; oath of, 384 ; is re- 
 sponsible to the people, 391 ; not the sole 
 representative of the people, 391 ; power 
 of, over removal from office, 397, 399 ; 
 custom of, on last day of a session of 
 Congress, 413 ; duty of, 417; how com- 
 municate his wislies to Congress, 417; 
 called the representative of the Ameri- 
 can people, 432. 
 
 Presidential Protest, speech on, 367 ; gen 
 eral doctrines of, 392. 
 
 Presidential Veto of United States Banic 
 Bill, speecli on, 320. 
 
 Press, freedom of, essential to free govern- 
 ment, 619 ; violence of, in respect to slav- 
 ery, 619. 
 
 Primogeniture, tlie right of, abolished in 
 New England, 44. 
 
 Property, general division of, necessary to 
 free government, 45. 
 
 Proscription, exercised by President Jack 
 son, 348 ; political, danger of, to the 
 government, 349. 
 
 Protection, incidental, policy of England, 
 84; should be limited, entire prohibition 
 destructive, 90 ; Mr. Webster's views on, 
 428 ; an object of tiie revolution of 1840, 
 489. 
 
 Public Credit, in 1842, 494. 
 
 Public Lands. See Lands, Public. 
 
 Public Law, extract from Puffendorf on, 
 62 ; forcible interference a violation of, 
 65. 
 
 Public Monej'8, to whom belongs the cus- 
 tody of, 308 ; place of deposit of, fixed by 
 Congress, 370; power of Congress over, 
 382; extract from Protest in regard to 
 
■02 
 
 Ds'DEX. 
 
 382 ; law of 1836 to regulate deposits of, 
 437. 
 
 Public Opinion, power of, 67, 483 ; its influ- 
 ence over governments, 133. 
 
 Public Worship, in United States, 651. 
 
 Puffendorf, extract from, bearing on prin- 
 ciples of Holy Alliance, 62. 
 
 Putnam, Judge 632. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quakers, their preachers, 524. 
 Quincy, Josiah, Jr., quoted, 129. 
 Quincy, Hon Josiah, 159. 
 
 R. 
 
 Radicals, of South Carolina, 244. 
 
 Kailroads, first in America, 126. 
 
 Kaleisli, Sir W., referred to, 143. 
 
 Randoipli, Jefferson, proposition of, to 
 abolish slavery, 619. 
 
 Randolph, Gov., on domestic slavery, 232. 
 
 Raymond, Henry J., reporter of Mr. Web- 
 ster's speeches, xxiv. 
 
 Reception of Mr. Webster at Boston, Sept. 
 30, 1842, 481 ; at Buffalo, May 22, 1851, 
 626 ; at New York, 307. 
 
 Reformation, provisions for religious in- 
 struction in schools at time of, 526. 
 
 Religion, the only conservative principle, 
 624; state of society without, 525; sup- 
 posed case of a graduate of Girard Col- 
 lege questioned in regard to, 525; neces- 
 sity of, to man, 050. 
 
 Removal from Office, speech of Webster on, 
 347 ; power of President in regard to, 347, 
 897, 399 ; decision of Congress in regard 
 to, 347 ; Mr. Madison's opinion in regard 
 to, 347 ; Mr. Jefferson's use of the power 
 of, 348; concerning the press, 351; ex- 
 tract from constitution of England on, 
 389; dangers of unlimited power in, 395; 
 act of 1820 in regard to, SOB, 397 ; act of 
 1780 on, 397. 401, 402, 404, 405 ; Constitu- 
 tion of U. S. on, 398; niannvr of, 400; 
 power of, incident to power of appoint- 
 ment, 400, 401, 402 ; eflfect of a nomina- 
 tion on, 401 ; concerning inferior officers, 
 402; reasons must be stated for, 404. 
 
 Removal of Deposits, object of, 806 ; by ex- 
 ecutive power, 309. 
 
 lU'ply to llayne, by Webster, 227. 
 
 Representation, American system of, 46 ; 
 in connection witli government, 341 ; in- 
 equality of, produced by aniie.ving slave 
 Slates, 501; of slaves, complaints of the 
 
 North against, 620 ; popular governmenti 
 established on the basis of, 642 ; in House 
 of Commons, 642 ; the foundation for law 
 643. 
 
 Representative Government, experiment 
 
 of, 341. 
 Representative System in England, 538. 
 Republican Government. See Government 
 American. 
 
 Repudiation denounced, 494. 
 
 Resolutions, for appointment of an agent to 
 Greece, 57 ; by John Adams, preparatory 
 to the Declaration, 163 ; of Congress on 
 Declaration of Independence, 165 ; of 
 Foot in Congress, in regard to Public 
 Lands, 227 ; of Congress concerning slav- 
 ery, 233; of Calhoun concerning State 
 sovereignty, 273 ; of Convention of 17b7, 
 287; of Senate concerning executive 
 veto, 368; on slavery in District of Co- 
 lumbia, 445; on Mr. Webster's speecii on 
 Girard will, 505 ; from State Legislatures 
 respecting slavery, 618. 
 
 Retrospective law, defined, 14 ; extract 
 from Ciiicf Justice Kent on, 14; passage 
 of, prohibited, 14. 
 
 Revenue, Mr. Webster's views on, 428. 
 
 Revolution, defined, 277. 
 
 Revolution, American, causes of, 37; begun 
 in New England, 42 ; commemorated by 
 Bunker Hill Monument, 125, 126; sur- 
 vivors of, at Bunker Hill, 127 ; charactei 
 of state papers of, 130; originated on a 
 question of principle, 371. 
 
 Revolution in Greece, speech on, 57. 
 
 Revolution of 1840, its objects, 488. 
 
 Revolution, Political, 132. 
 
 Rhetoric, Daniel Webster as a master of 
 English style, xi. 
 
 Rhode Island, argument on government of, 
 535; proceedings of revolutionary party 
 of 1841 in, 535; proceedings of the Dorr 
 party in, 544; new constitution of, 545; 
 action of President Tyler in respect to 
 insurrection in, 547 ; error of charter 
 government of, 549; good effects of the 
 agitation in, 549. 
 
 Rich, Capt. Benjamin, 487. 
 
 Richmond, Va., address to the ladies ot, 
 478. 
 
 Right of Approach, of ships of war at sea, 
 664. 
 
 Right of Search, letter of Mr. Webster on 
 tiie, 600; British claim to, t)02; not dis- 
 tinct from right of visit, 062 ; view of the 
 United States, on, 664-606; Lord Aber- 
 deen on the, 670. 
 
 Riglits, Legal, not affected by pecuniary 
 profit, 12; of electors, 12; of individuals 
 
INDEX. 
 
 703 
 
 m regard to own property, 12 ; individ- 
 ual, protei;tcd by law, 15. 
 
 Bio Grande, Texas claims to line of, 562 ; 
 worthlessness of the valley of the, 5G5. 
 
 Rives, W. C, opinions of the Constitution, 
 284.' 
 
 Bobbins, Bev. Chandler, delivers address 
 on ;inniversary of landing of Pilgrims, 25. 
 
 Kobinson, Rev. Jolni, 30, 31. 
 
 Rome, liberty of, G42. 
 
 Rusk, Mr., Senator from Texas, 563. 
 
 Russia, extract from Emperor on proper 
 policy, 64; under Peter the Great, 09; 
 excited the Greeks to rebellion, 69 ; under 
 Catharine the Second, 70; her trade with 
 the United States, 93 ; Emperor of, bound 
 by the law of nations, 598 ; Emperor of, 
 demands Kossuth of Turkey, 598. 
 
 Ruxton, Mr., description of New Mexico, 
 567. 
 
 Sabbatn, convention at Columbus, 0., in 
 regard to observance of the, 618; the ob- 
 servance of, a part of Christianity, 518. 
 
 St. Asaph, Bishop of, extract from dis- 
 course, G40. 
 
 Salem, sentiments of, at the closing of port 
 of Boston, 129 ; General Court at, 162. 
 
 Sargent, Henry, picture representing Land- 
 ing of the Pilgrims, by, 52. 
 
 Schools, founded by charity, must include 
 religious instruction, 528. 
 
 Schools of New England, 174. 
 
 Science and literature, 51. 
 
 Scio, destruction of, 73. 
 
 Scott, Gen. Winfield, brilliant campaign of, 
 554 ; referred to, 578. 
 
 Seamen, letter of Daniel Webster on im- 
 pressment of, 658. 
 
 Search. See Right of Search. 
 
 Secession, defined, 276; right of States to, 
 denied, 278, 282; practical consequences 
 of, 279 ; no such thing as peaceable, 621 ; 
 of Virginia, improbability of, 646 ; men 
 of the Southern States addressed in re- 
 spect to, 647. 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury, his custody of 
 the public moneys, 308. 
 
 Senate of the United States, a body of, 
 equals, 229; resolution concerning execu- 
 tive veto, 368; its right of self-defence, 
 372. 
 Sliakspeare. use of words, xiii. 
 Sliaw, Chief Justice, 532. 
 Sheridan, remark of, xxv. 
 Sherman, Roger, appointed to draft the 
 Declaration, 164 
 
 Shipping Interest, how affecteil by tariff of 
 
 1824, 108. 
 Shipping of England, provisions in respect 
 
 to, 109. 
 Ships of War, their right to approach ve»- 
 
 sels at sea, 664. 
 Silk, manufacture of, in England, 87. 
 Silsbee, Hon. N., 349. 
 " Sink or swim, survive or perish," etc., 
 
 168. 
 Slave, and Slavery, words not found in tha 
 
 Constitution, 006. 
 Slave-holding States, advantages of, in re- 
 spect to representation, 233 ; rights of, 
 in regard to new territories, 572. 
 Slave Labor, its relation to free, 573 ; com- 
 pared with laboring men of tlie Ncrth, 
 020. 
 Slavery, prohibited by Ordinance of 1787, 
 231; petitions to first Congress to abolish, 
 232 ; memorial from Pennsylvania to abol- 
 ish, 232; Gov. Randolph, sentiments on, 
 232 ; Mr. Webster's sentiments on, 232 ; 
 Congress has no power over, in the 
 States, 233; plans for exclusion of, in 
 Northwestern Territory, 234 ; resolution 
 of Rufus King in regard to, 235 ; views 
 of Mr. Webster on, 429 ; beyond the 
 power of Congress, 429; recognized by 
 the Constitution, 429, 570; inexpediency 
 of annexing slave Slates, 429 ; in District 
 of Columbia, remarks on, 445; Mr. Web- 
 ster's opinion in regard to power of Con- 
 gress over, 462 ; speech on exclusion of 
 from the territories, 509 ; peculiarity of 
 American, 570; entailed upon the colo- 
 nies by England, 571 ; Congress has no 
 control over, 571, 630; excluded from 
 Northwestern Territory, 571 ; exists by 
 local laws, 573 ; ^Iv. Webster's opinion 
 of extension of slavery and slave repre- 
 sentation, 574 ; the Compromise Line in 
 respect to extension of, 588; resolutions 
 of Henry Clay in respect to, 600; pros- 
 pect of California and New Mexico being 
 free States, 002 : 'ts existence among the 
 Greeks and Roiu ms, 603 ; sentiincuts of 
 the North and South on, at framing of 
 the Constitution, 005; Ordinance of 1787 
 in respect to, 606; Mr. Madison's opinion 
 on, 606; concurrence of sentiment be- 
 tween North and South on subject of, 
 607 ; causes which led to an extension 
 of, in the South, 608 ; change of opinion 
 of the South in respect to, 608 ; character 
 of ail the territory of the United States 
 fixed beyond power of the government, 
 609; excluded from Calilbrni.^ and New 
 Mexico by law of nature, 615, 632 ; elttH.-t 
 
704 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 of abolition societies at the North, 619; 
 proposition of Mr. Randolph in respect 
 to, 619; comparison of slaves of South 
 and laboring people of the North, 620 ; 
 complaints of the North concerning repre- 
 sentation in Congress, 620 ; concerning 
 transportation of free colored people, 
 623 ; Mr. Webster's course concerning, 
 630 ; proceedings of antislavery conven- 
 tions, 035. 
 Slaves, emancipation of, in District of Co- 
 lumbia, 375; provision of the Constitu- 
 tion in respect to fugitive, 629. 
 Slave Trade, remarks of Mr. Webster on, 
 49; American policy concerning the, 606. 
 Smith, Gen., vote on bank question, 328. 
 Smith, Hon. Truman, speech referred to, 
 
 660. 
 Smith, Mr., of South Carolina, on protec- 
 tion, 304. 
 Smithson, Hugh, founded Smithsonian In- 
 stitute, 652. 
 Smithsonian Institute, establishment, 652, 
 Social system, elements of a, established by 
 
 compact of the Pilgrim Fathers, 35. 
 Society, rights of, affected by principles of 
 
 Holy Alliance, 62, 64. 
 South, policy of, toward Western improve- 
 ment, 238 ; complaints concerning their 
 rights, 572 ; the lead in the politics of the 
 country, 60S ; complaints of, against the 
 North,"017. 
 South America, combination of European 
 Sovereigns against, 66 ; position of U. S. 
 government towards, 66 ; revolution in, 
 134 ; Spanish colonies of, 134. 
 South American Republics, our relations to, 
 
 152. 
 Soutli Carolina, concerning internal im- 
 provements, 238, 243 ; her action on tariff 
 of 1816, 243 ; radical party in, 244 ; at- 
 tack on, disclaimed, 253 ; eulogium on, 
 (Webster,) 254; doctrine of, concerning 
 State rights, 255 ; in 1775, and 1828, 259 ; 
 relation to England in 1776, 259; resist- 
 ance to laws of the Union advised, 250 ; 
 practical operation of nullification in, 
 266; nullification threatened in, 355. 
 Southern Confederacy, impossibility of, 621. 
 Spain, French invasion of, 67, 153 ; want of 
 protection in, 99 ; overthrow of popular 
 government in, 153; invites co-operiition 
 of Holy Alliance over colonies in Ameri- 
 ca, 154. 
 Spanish Settlements in America, 144. 
 Specie, unusual doniand for, and the cause, 
 81 ; drain of, owing to French Indem- 
 nity Loan, 81 ; the exportation of, 95; 
 experiment ol un exclusive specie cur- 
 
 rency, 362; treasury order concerning 
 payments for public lands, 438 ; its uses, 
 441 ; the effect of withholding circula- 
 tion, 441. 
 
 Specie Payment, suspension of, 443. 
 
 Speech on the " Panama Mission," 152. 
 
 Spencer, Judge, 319. 
 
 Sprague, Judge, 532. 
 
 Standish, Miles, 27 
 
 State Banks, issue of small notes by, not 
 advisable, 363. 
 
 State Interposition, right of, 292. 
 
 State Laws, in opposition to law of Con- 
 gress, supreme, 122 ; prohibition on, con- 
 cerning bankruptcy, 186 ; prohibition on, 
 in regard to contracts, 187; in conflict 
 with the Constitution, 205. 
 
 State Rights Party, Mr. Callioun's espousal 
 of the, 464. 
 
 States, concurrent power of, argued, 116, 
 117 ; doctrine of South Carolina concern- 
 ing rights of, 255; resolution of Virginia, 
 1798, concerning rights of, 256, 203 ; sov- 
 ereignt}- limits of, 257 ; right of, whence 
 derived, 2G4 ; Calhoun's resolutions on 
 sovereignty of, 273 ; taxing power of, 
 limited, 336 ; have no sovereignty over 
 public lands, 426 ; concerning insurrec- 
 tion in one of the, 543 ; inequality of 
 representation in annexing slave States, 
 561. 
 
 Stevenson, Andrew, 487. 
 
 Stiles, Mr., correspondence of, relating to 
 Hungary, G82. 
 
 Stillingtleet, Bishop, argument on power of 
 
 visitation over corporations, 8. 
 Story, Mr. Justice, death of, 532; eulogy of 
 Mr. Webster on, 532 ; respect of English 
 lawyers to, 533; character of, 534. 
 Strogonoff, Baron, concerning the massacre 
 
 of the Greeks, 71. 
 Sturges I'. Crowninshield, decision in bank- 
 ruptcy case of, ISO. 
 Suflrage, principles of American govern- 
 ment in respect to, 539. 
 Sullivan, William, 137. 
 Supreme Court of United States, its object, 
 293 ; judges of, how appointed, 318 ; 
 concerning a nomination for judge of, 
 413. 
 Sweden, export of iron fron, 106. 
 
 T. 
 
 Tariff, bill to amend the (1828), 77 ; speech 
 of Mr. Webster on, 77 ; " American " and 
 " foreign policy '' applied to system of, 
 78 ; protective system of England, 84 ; 
 
INDEX. 
 
 706 
 
 of 1816 and 1824, respecting inanufhc- 
 tures, i>0; of 1824, carried by Middle 
 States, 110 ; of 1824, Massacliusetts voted 
 againet. 110 ; earliest advocates of, 243; 
 of 1816, 248; of 1^24, 248; of 1828, 248, 
 258; course pursued by Mr. Webster in 
 regard to, 247,463; resolutions ado])ted 
 in Boston in regard to, 463; of 1816, a 
 Soutli Carolina measure, liistory of, 465; 
 of 1810, New England against, 465; of 
 1842, how passed, 48'J. 
 
 Ta.xation, efl'ect of, on landholders In Eng- 
 land, 44. 
 
 Taylor, Gen. Zachary, at Buena Vista, 559 ; 
 as a candidate for President, 576-579 ; 
 personal character of, 577 ; his interest in 
 the revolutionary movement in Hungary, 
 679. 
 
 Tea, increase of its consumption, 80. 
 
 Terrett v. Taylor, protection of grant, 20. 
 
 Territory, cession of, by Virginia, 006. 
 
 Texas, history of, 428 ; independence of, 
 recognized, 428; annexation to United 
 States objectionable, 429 ; opposition of 
 Mr. Webster to admit into the Union, 
 559; President Tyler's project of annex- 
 ing, 560 ; how its annexation affects 
 representation, 561 ; population of, in 
 1848, 562; territory of, 562; admitted 
 into the Union, 562, 563, 609 ; suitable 
 time for annexing, 563 ; the vote for the 
 admission of, 583 ; extract from resolu- 
 tion for admission of, 609 ; States to 
 be formed from, 609, 615 ; votes of New 
 England for admission of, 610; extracts 
 from speech of Mr. Webster on, 613, 631 ; 
 separated from Mexico, 630 ; vote of New 
 York for annexing, 631 ; admitted as a 
 slave State, 633 ; fortunate adjustment 
 by Congress of controversy in (1850), 
 633. 
 
 Timber, English duties on, 89. 
 
 Toast, to City of New York, 319; to mem- 
 ory of Washington, 346 ; at Dinner of 
 New England Society in New York, 503. 
 
 Tonnage, how affected by tariff of 1824, 
 100 ; no State can lay duty on, 122. 
 
 Trade of United States, with foreign mar- 
 kets, 93. 
 
 Transportation of free colored people, 623. 
 
 Treason, defined, 267. 
 
 Treasury of United States, order concern- 
 ing specie payment, 440 ; effect of the 
 order, 441. 
 
 Tudor, William, interest in Bunker Hill 
 Monument, 123, 137. 
 
 Turkey, its oppression of Greece, 68. 
 
 Tyler, John, at Bunker Hill, 139; confi- 
 dence in Mr. AVebster, 481 ; action in 
 
 respect to insurrection in Rhode Island, 
 547 ; project of annexing Texas, 560 
 
 u. 
 
 Union, Mr. Webster's sentiments on cot. 
 solidation of, 246 ; apostrophe to, 269 ; 
 speech of March 7, 1850, on preservation 
 of the, 600; impossibility of drawing the 
 line in case of dissolution of, 622 ; exhor- 
 tation to citizens of Buffalo to preserve 
 the, 627 ; Mr. Jefferson's opinion of ad 
 mitting Louisiana into the, 030. 
 
 Union of the States, important, 140, 269, 
 425 ; not a league, 278 ; how regarded by 
 Washington, 345 ; our duty to the, 456. 
 
 United Colonies, declared free and inde- 
 pendent States, 641. 
 
 United States, peaceful policy of, 59 ; duty 
 of, concerning international law, 60, 61, 
 66 ; interest and duty of, in international 
 law, G6 ; position of government towards 
 South America, 66 ; exports of, com- 
 pared, 79 ; navigation of, 83 ; trade with 
 Holland and Russia, 93 ; duties as citizens 
 of the, 176 ; how affected by pacification 
 of Europe, 242; attention of, directed to 
 internal improvements, 242 ; alliance with 
 France declared void, 278 ; danger to, of 
 dismemberment, 346 ; table showing prog- 
 ress in, from 1793 to 1851, 645; progress 
 of, in arts and sciences, 648 ; coast survey 
 of, 648; military resources of, 649 ; posi- 
 tion of, in respect to the Holy Alliance, 
 681 ; conduct of, toward revolution in 
 Hungary, 683. 
 
 United States Bank Bill, speech of Webster 
 on, 320. 
 
 Upshur, Mr., correspondence in regard to 
 Texas, 611; his object for admission of 
 Texas, 611 ; Secretary of State, 660. 
 
 Van Buren, Martin, policy of his adminis- 
 tration, 455; appointed Secretary of 
 State, 581 ; his instructions to Mr. Mc- 
 Lane, 581 ; nominated by Free Soil Par- 
 ty, 581 ; views of, relative to slavery in 
 the District of Columbia, 582 ; intluence 
 in annexing Texas, 582 ; candidate for 
 Presidency in 1844, 583. 
 
 Vansittart, Mr., resolution on the worth of 
 a bank note, 491. 
 
 Verona, Congress at, 1822, 153; concerning 
 Grecian independence, 70. 
 
 Veto Message, consequences of the, 887 ; 
 
 45 
 
706 
 
 INDEX 
 
 denies authority of Supreme Court and 
 Congress, 338. 
 
 Veto Power, abuse of, 493. 
 
 Vienna, society of, to encourage Grecian 
 literature, 72. 
 
 Virginia, resolutions concerning commerce, 
 115; assembly of House of Burgesses in, 
 148 ; Thomas Jefferson, Governor of, 172 ; 
 resolution concerning State rights, 256 ; 
 resolutions of 1708 in regard to State 
 riglics, 263 ; ratification of tlie Constitu- 
 tion by, 289 ; cession of her Northwestern 
 territory, 606; early feeling in regard to- 
 slavery, 619 ; cession of her public lands, 
 623 ; improbability of her secession, 046. 
 
 Visit and Search, identical, 662. 
 
 Visitation, Lord Holt's judgment on, in 
 case of ExetL-r College, 7 ; power of, over 
 corporations, 7 ; Stillingfleet's argument 
 on power of, 8. 
 
 Visitor, api)licd to founder of incorporated 
 charity, 7. 
 
 Volney's " Ruins of Empires," quoted, 520. 
 
 Voltaire, followers of, admitted to Girard 
 College, 513. 
 
 Volunteers, difficulty in recruiting, 555. 
 
 w. 
 
 Walker, Mr., took lead in annexing Texas, 
 609. 
 
 War, only declared by Congress, 287 ; Mr. 
 Webster's defence of his course in, 459 ; 
 of 1812, effect on prices, 81. 
 
 Warehouse System, of England, and United 
 States, 90. 
 
 Warren, Gen. Josepli, measures toward 
 erecting a monument to, 123 ; eulogized, 
 127. 
 
 Washington, Gen. George, 131, 168, 251; 
 remark on battle of Bunker Hill, 142; 
 apostrophe to, 140, 653 ; decease of, 156 ; 
 administration supported by New Eng- 
 land, 250 ; his inauguration at New York, 
 312; centennial anniversary at Washing- 
 ton, 339; representative government es- 
 tablished under, 341 ; remark of Fisher 
 Ames on, 342 ; basis of his character, 342 ; 
 policy as to foreign relations, 343 ; domes- 
 tic policy of, 344 ; exhortation against 
 party spirit, 345 ; his regard for the Union, 
 345 ; toast of Webster to memory of, 346 ; 
 his practice of addressing Congress in per- 
 son, 374 ; civil character of, 577 ; founda- 
 tion of Capitol laid by, 644, 652 ; monu- 
 ment to, 652. 
 
 Washington City, its favorable situation, 
 651 ; public dinner at, 339 
 
 Washington, Treaty of, letter of Mr. Web 
 8ter on the ratification of the, 666. 
 
 Webster, Daniel, remarks on African Slave 
 Trade, 49 ; resolution to appoint an agent 
 to Greece, 57 ; opinion of paper curren- 
 cy, 82 ; explains his change of opinion on 
 protection, 110 ; President of Bunker Hill 
 Monument Association, 125; address on 
 completion of Bunker Hill Monument, 
 136 ; author of supposed speech against 
 the Declaration. 167 ; eloquence defined 
 by, 167 ; letter concerning the authorship 
 of speech ascribed to John Adams, 177 : 
 his portrayal of murder, 106 ; reply tc 
 Hayne, 227 ; views on disposition of pub 
 lie lands, 237, 238; course pursued in 
 Congress on internal improvements, 243 ,; 
 course concerning tariff, 247 ; sentiments 
 on consolidation of the Union, 248; apos- 
 trophe to the Union, 269 ; reply to Cal- 
 houn in regard to State sovereignty, 273 ; 
 speech at public dinner in New York, 307 ; 
 defence of the Constitution, 317 ; circum- 
 stances of his birth, 319 ; respect of, for 
 judicature of New York, 319 ; toast to Ciiy 
 of New York, 319 ; presides at centennial 
 anniversary of Washington, 339 ; toast to 
 Washington, 346 ; sentiments on re-elec- 
 tion of Jackson, 357 ; prediction in regard 
 to irredeemable paper currency, 365 ; 
 remark of J. Q. Adams on, 406 ; reception 
 in New York, 1837, 422 ; oj)inions on slav- 
 ery, 429; views on hard money, 440; 
 devoted to service of United States, 457; 
 reply to Mr. Calhoun, 458 ; denies Mr. 
 Calhoun's charges, 458-60; defence of 
 his course in war, 459 ; opposes Mr. 
 Dallas's bill for a bank, 460 ; course in 
 war of 1812, 461 ; early support to the 
 navy, 461 ; answers Mr. Calhoun's cliarges 
 in regard to slavery, 462; answer to Cal- 
 houn's charges on tariff, 463 ; political 
 differences with Mr. Calhoun, 468; a hard- 
 money man, 468; the log cabin of his fa- 
 ther, 477 ; visit to Richmond, 478 ; speech 
 at his reception in Boston, 481 ; Rep- 
 resentative in Congress, 481 ; reception 
 at Boston. Sept. 30, 1842, 481; Secretary 
 of State under President Harrison, 482 , 
 visit and speech in England, 483 ; oppa 
 sition to his remaining in the President's 
 Cabinet (1841), 48() ; delicacy of his jio- 
 sition in 1842, 486; study of the curren- 
 cy question, 492; speech at dinner o( 
 New l^ngland Society of New York, 496 ; 
 toast at dinner of New Kugland Society, 
 at New York, 503 ; correspondence arising 
 under Girard Will case, 505 ; letter to 
 Madam Story on death of her son. 532 
 
INDEX. 
 
 707 
 
 opposed admission of Texas into the 
 Union, 569 , against extension of slavery 
 and slave representation, 674 ; invited by 
 citizens of Marslifield to address theni, 
 675 ; letter of, to citizens of Marslifield. 
 675 ; addresses the citizens of Marslifield, 
 575 ; opinion of Gen. Taylor for President, 
 576; opinion of Gen. Cass for President, 
 684; course concerning Texas, 612-614; 
 Secretary of State, 613; in Senate, 613; 
 ideas of peaceable secession, G21 ; letter 
 to Eds. of National Intelligencer, enclos- 
 ing letter of late Dr. Clianning, 024; let- 
 ter of W. E. Channing to, in respect to 
 slavery, 624; reception at Buffalo, May 
 22, 1851, 026 ; course concerning slavery, 
 630 ; extract from speech on annexing 
 Texas, 631 ; course during the crises of 
 1850, 637 ; account of laying the corner 
 stone of the Capitol, 652 ; letter to Lord 
 Ashburton on impressment of seamen, 
 655; letter to Gen. Cass in respect to his 
 construction of the treaty of Washington, 
 666, 667, 673 ; letter to Mr. Ticknor in re- 
 spect to the Hiilsemann letter, 678; letter 
 to J. G. Hiilsemann in respect to Mr. 
 Mann's mission, 079 ; as a master of Eng- 
 lish style, xi; influence over and respect 
 for the landed democracy, xiv ; manage- 
 ment of the Goodridge robbery case, xv; 
 story told of him by Mr. Peter Harvey, 
 XV ; early style of rhetoric, xviii ; letter 
 to his friend Bingham, xix; acquaintance 
 with Jeremiah Mason, xix ; incident con- 
 nected with the Dartmouth College argu- 
 ment, xxi ; effect of his Plymouth oration 
 of 1820, xxii ; note to Mr. Geo. Ticknor 
 on his Bunker Hill oration, 1825, xxiii; 
 esteem for Henry J. Kaymond, xxiv ; 
 the image of the British drum-beat, xxix ; 
 power of compact statement, xxxi ; pro- 
 test against Mr. Benton's E.xpunging 
 Resolution, xxxi; arguments against nul- 
 lification and secession unanswerable, 
 xxxiii ; moderation of expression, xxxv ; 
 abstinence from personalities, xxxvi ; li- 
 belled by his poUtical enemies, xxxvi ; 
 use of the word "respectable," xl ; and 
 Calhoun in debate, xliii ; as a writer of 
 State papers, xliv ; as a stump orator, 
 xlv ; a friend of the laboring man, xlvi; 
 compared with certain poets, xlviii ; 
 death-bed det^laration of, li ; fame of his 
 speeches, li.; compared with other ora- 
 
 tors, Ivi ; idealization of the Constitution 
 lix ; anecdote of his differing from LorH 
 Camden, Ixii. 
 Webster, Fletcher, letter to Gen. Cass, 667. 
 Weir, Robert N., his painting of the Em- 
 barkation of the Pilgrims, 52. 
 Wesley. John, anecdote of, 511. 
 West India colonies, 34. 
 Wheelock, Rev. E., founder of Dartmouth 
 
 College, 1. 
 Whig, origin of the term, 476. 
 Whigs, of New York, 443 ; Convention of, 
 in Boston, 486; of Mass. declare separa- 
 tion from the President, 487 ; the revolu- 
 tion of 1840, success of the, 488 ; Gen. • 
 Taylor nominated by, 675. 
 White, Capt. Joseph, account of the mur- 
 der of, 189; argument of Webster on. 
 194. 
 White, Mr., 416. 
 
 Wickliffe, John, burnt for heresy, 599. 
 Wilkins, Mr., bill of, concerning tariff, 273. 
 Williams, Mr., 489. 
 
 Wilmot Proviso, to be applied to Texas 
 and other acquisitions, 611, 612; Mr. 
 Polk's opinion of the, 616 ; not to be used 
 as a reproach to Southern States, 616 ; 
 espoused by the Eree-Soil men, 631 ; 
 proposition to apply to New Mexico and 
 California, 632. 
 Windham, I\Ir., remark of, 622. 
 Winslow, Edward, Jr., first address on an- 
 niversary of landing of Pilgrims de- 
 livered by, 26. 
 Winthrop, R. C, voted for tariff of 1842, 
 
 489. 
 Witherspoon, Mr., motion in Congress con- 
 cerning commerce, 115. 
 Woman, how she performs her part in free 
 
 government, 479. 
 Wool, proposition of English Parlianfient to 
 
 abolish tax on, 90. 
 Woollen Manufactures, how affected by 
 tariff of 1824, 101 ; of England and 
 United States, 102. 
 Wright, Silas, voted for tariff of 1842, 489. 
 
 Y. 
 
 York, Duke of, anecdote in respect to hi» 
 
 accession to the crown, 586. 
 Ypsilanti, Alexander, leads insurrection in 
 
 Moldavia, 72. 
 

 
 tSS^ad^ 
 
 ■■rV of CONOKL3S 
 
 011838 5512